Talk:Sunrise at Campobello

message: :Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg

message: Organizing the article in sections typical for movies is a good idea and a needed improvement, but starting the article with a section heading ("Plot") instead of a Lead is contrary to Wikipedia practice (see Film article style guidelines). Also, on my browser at least, it results in a  whitespace gap at the top of the article, since a section heading there makes content wait. So I've again changed this, while retaining the sections themselves, with added content.
I have a real NPOV concern, though, as presenting just one side concerning his diagnosis and deleting all mention of contrary views and cited sources is problematic in a Wikipedia article. To avoid this, the article lead does just say "paralysis" now, not polio as it once did. My last edit is done in the spirit of NPOV, with a "See also" for those who wish to delve into the medical aspects as opposed to the cinematic. JGHowes talk -  06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx so much, Dagoldman, for your comment. I'm glad we have collaborated to improve the article considerably and it does harmonize well with the article Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. Sunrise is near B-class now, methinks, probably just needing a little more elaboration in the Reception aspect, e.g., box office receipts, critics' reviews, etc. I had read the article Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness awhile ago (while doing some major edits to Eleanor Roosevelt) and would suggest that some of the published peer-reviews be cited in that article as additional references, or better yet, any mainstream news media articles reporting this GBS vs. Polio analysis. I don't think it's too widely known, so the first time most people hear that FDR may not have been a polio victim is Wikipedia, which could account for the REDFLAG reaction in certain quarters. Too bad NY Presby. Hospital didn't perform a spinal tap on FDR or, if they did, I suppose the results were not preserved?  JGHowes talk -  13:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. A spinal tap was not performed. It would have given the answer. Leucocytes are increased and total protein normal in CSF from patients with polio. The reverse occurs in GBS. There aren't any published peer-reviews to my knowledge. Either 1) nobody cares, 2) nobody knows, or 3) nobody can refute. I don't think it's "nobody cares", because researchers love to publish articles refuting other published findings. We did our best to publicize the findings, including sending reprints to the FDR biographers, but publicity is low. There were a fair number of mainstream news articles. For (a brief) period it was one of the top news stories on yahoo news. It was on national network news. The news articles pretty uniformly presented the findings, interviewed the paper author, and then asked a neurologist or polio survivor their opinion. The opinion responses were mostly skeptical, and tended to be rather general or pejorative, such as "that's a stretch" or "amateur historians trying to rewrite history", without stating concrete objections. Your suggestion to expand the illness article by including some of the media responses is not a bad idea, but I'm too busy with my work (programming medical data software) to get into that, and I don't think any of the responses were substantive enough to merit much of a response anyway. I agree the paper and the conclusion that FDR probably did not have polio are not widely known. On google, 9 of the top 10 hits on "roosevelt polio" don't mention GBS. I think that's one thing so wonderful about wikipedia. Findings backed by scholarly research, that would otherwise quickly fade away, at least have a chance to be accepted or debunked, which is the way the scientific process is supposed to work. If the idea ever does get generally accepted, I think it will be largely attributable to the exposure in wikipedia. Dagoldman (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2007 edits 

message: I've removed an insertion by what appears to be a COI account primarily devoted to including references to research by a doctor of the same name. If uninvolved editors find this information to be a useful addition to the article, however, please feel free to restore. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI concerns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sunrise at Campobello. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116210653/http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=1961 to http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=1961
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified