Talk:Sicko/Archive 1

message: There is a bias problem in the controversy page. It claims that Micheal Moore is over 750 lbs yet it doesn't cite the source. It also says that many have argued that an obese man cannot right a film criticising healthcare but it doesn't say who said that. Additionally, it does not offer any defenses of the film like you see in most controversy pages. Oh, and don't try to say no one has defended it. Micheal Moore does have fans and at least one would probably defend it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorie the Moron (talk • contribs) 
* For future reference, any outlandish claims that don't cite any source (or a poor unreliable source) can just be removed per WP:BLP. You don't even have to discuss it here, just cite WP:BLP in the edit summary. - Crockspot 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not against a controversies section. However, the section put in by Quilabird cant use wikipedia as a citation. I am sorry but the paragraph was unsourced. This article will need to have good sourcing because of its controversial nature. Feel free to source it and put it back in. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you prefer I duplicate the eight sources listed in the applicable part of the article on Cuban health care, or should I just pick one? I cited that article for economy, the counterpoint to one small part of the movie doesn't need to itself be a major portion of the entire article.QuilaBird 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While information should be sourced, it is best to place a citation tag on it and allow editors time to add a citation than delete it without allowing time for editors to respond.--Gloriamarie 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Fox News mentions that there may be a showing of Sicko at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival. - Crockspot 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News item 

message: *Moore faces investigation over 'Sicko' Cuba trip
*Moore blasts Bush over film-trip probe
Hope we have a neutral editor maintaining this article.  I have a feeling this film will be the target of some POV edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Hollywood Reporter'' citations 

message: Just out today. - Crockspot 16:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME Magazine interview 

message: The movie's name is "Sicko" not "SiCKO" right? The only place I see the latter spelling is on the poster. If so, we should probably use "Sicko" throughout the article. — brighterorange (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the name on the poster be assumed to be right?  I think the article should be moved to SiCKO (with a redirect from Sicko).  My two cents. PseudoEdit 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also wondering if the capitalization is just stylized, or the intended title. Danielsan1701 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As of this writing, there are even instances of the title being written in standard English on michaelmoore.com. - Cyrus XIII 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: :It has emerged that in the film Michael Moore accompanies a number of rescue workers injured in the World Trade Center attacks of 2001 to Cuba to receive medical treatments, but did not address the local poverty of that country that seemed strangely omitted.
Confusing sentence.  The movie did not address something that was also omitted.  Is it possible to address something while omitting it?  Do we need an enyclopedia telling us something is "strange", can't we the readers judge that ourselves?
Many would argue that the "local poverty" of Cuba is largely due to the Blockade imposed upon the country and the potential imports of the outside world by the US government. Poverty in Cuba is not unique when compared to other Latin American countries.
The film touches briefly on Cuba's health care system costing significantly less to administer via ample preventative care, and makes the case that if Cuba is able to afford universal health care with their limited resources, the wealthier US should be able to 142.161.178.64 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cuba 

message: I think I'll add a section on the Moore vs Fred Thompson controversy. OK? TheDeciderDecides 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't followed this one much. Would it be more appropriate for one of the other MM articles, like Michael Moore controversies? You could have a header with just a brief sentence or three here, with a link to the main article, where the full story is. Just a suggestion. Something else to consider, to call it a "controversy", you usually need a reliable source characterizing it as a controversy. That probably wouldn't be hard to find in this case. - Crockspot 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read up on it first and then comment? It is directly related to Sicko and incidents and issues related to the movie so it would go here. I look forward to your thoughts. TheDeciderDecides 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore vs Thompson

message: This article needs to be cleaned up just a little.  The quality of english expression in some parts is sub-standard.  There are many glaring grammatical errors that result in an article that falls short of being encyclopaedic in it's quality.
::: I'll take your word for it that it's directly related. I don't object to a section, but the article is about the movie, so it shouldn't be so large a section that it overwhelms the article. You seem to be aware of NPOV, OR, and all that, so knock yourself out. If you aren't up on reftags and citation templates, just stick in inline urls for cites, and I'll format them up into good footnotes when you are done. - Crockspot 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Expression 

message: I just saw this movie and the title card reads SiCKO. Shouldn't it be changed accordingly? - Throw 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct title 

message: Should this be noted on the page? --(trogga) 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried that but it was removed. I don't understand; it's not hard to verify, just go on any torrent site, it's there and the comments in said sites prove it's the real deal. If you can't reference "illegal" sites, what are you suppose to do? They're the authoritative source for this info anyway. PanicAttack 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's acknowledged already. Observe the Wikinews item. smb 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than add a link to a lawbreaking website, just ref an article in the mainstream press which mentions the piracy. Edison 01:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the best one yet, no question about it. Turtlescrubber 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I found it on Drudge. :) - Crockspot 01:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he does know his sources. ;) Turtlescrubber 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie leaked online 

message: For those who think it is not notable to have a section of the early leak on the internet, think about the last time you can remember a film was pirated before the theatrical release.And if the problem is confirmation, reliable sources such as CNET  and Reuters  have talked about it, so this has to be considered notable,which is why I hope noone reverts it. Rodrigue 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not notable.  Films get leaked onto bittorrent etc.  No point speculating whether Moore uploaded it, without sources saying so. --Oscarthecat 06:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My friends brothers girlfriends cousins neighbor (not me of course) who downloads movies says that the majority of good pirate sites have movies show up often before their official release dates. "Rarest form of piracy" isn't accurate, more appropriate would be to state that it is rarely so easily available (free/open torrent sites) before the release. -- 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can someone tell me why Wikinews isn't the cite for this piracy, and Reuters is? We do original research and I verified the film was leaked as well as giving information on it which could expand the article. --Brianmc 13:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OR and look at the section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I would assume that wikinews (like wikipedia) constitutes a tertiary source. Also, there are only two lines in total in your wikinews article that address the piracy issue. If my interpretation of the policy is wrong (which it might be) please let me know and show me the relevant overriding policy. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe hostel 2 was pirated by dvd screeners. There are a lot of similarities between the two happenings. Turtlescrubber 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, your probably right. However, if you search dvd screener hostel you will get a ton of hits. However, there are other articles on the web denoting an inside job (not a screener). I think your right on this one. Turtlescrubber 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piracy 

message: I'm still a bit of a noob, but can't the MPAA Rating section be absorbed into the infobox? Can someone please make this edit, since I don't know how those boxes work? TimD 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPAA Rating 

message: Turtlescrubber removed this section, calling it "original research". I'm not so sure. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the accuracy -- is that really what the film says, or is it (as I think I've heard elsewhere) that the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than other advanced countries (I've heard that a lot elsewhere). According to the World Factbook, the U.S. ranks 180th out of 221 countries, meaning that 40 countries have better infant-mortality rates than we do. Here's the language (another point: I don't think we need a long list here):
;Film's fallacies
The film claims the United States has the worst infant mortality rate in the Western world. However, Croatia, Belarus, Slovakia, Estonia, the Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Hungary, Chile, Latvia, Macedonia, Russia, Barbados, Uruguay, Argentina, Aruba, Jamaica, Panama, the British Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador (which Moore falsely claims has a lower infant mortality rate), the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, Honduras, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia all have higher infant mortality rates.  World Factbook Infant Mortality Rate
Noroton 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. Do you seriously think that this should be in the article. First of all, it is completely unsourced. Did he say that? I don't know. Do you? Did he say western countries? Did he say advanced countries? Does Aruba qualify as an advanced Western country? Or an advanced country? Or a Western country?(by the way the answer to those questions is no and it applies to all the other countries in the list). I mean trinidad and tobago and bolivia for gods sake! A link to the world factbook is original research. The title itself is pov to the max. I really can't believe that you brought this to the talk page as it makes me seriously doubt your motives on this page. Turtlescrubber 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be serious, turn off the emotion spigot, or at least turn it lower, and take a little more care in how you respond. And take another look at what I actually said. If I choose to be careful and polite in my wording, you might look on that as a better alternative to the opposite. Sourcing for whatever is in the movie is generally to simply say it was in the movie itself. How would that be sourced? I do wonder if he said exactly that, as a matter of fact, but if he did say something like it, then by putting the paragraph here someone else who knows might tell us, and the footnote points to a good source involving no leaps of original research. The editor appears to have thought Moore meant the Western Hemisphere (where those countries the editor lists are located). I think you have plenty of information to get a good handle on my motives, given my edits to all parts of the article. You might want to re-examine your reactions to those who disagree with you. In a controversial article it's better to apply emotional restraint several steps before you otherwise might, because edit warring and the like are so easy and waste so much time. Noroton 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did "Croatia, Belarus, Slovakia, Estonia,Hungary and others relocate to the Western Hemisphere? What is with the lecture? There was little emotion in my response and I have done no edit warring. You don't choose to be careful and polite in your wording as you are the one who called me out by name and who contends that the paragraph in question is not original research. I think by moving this non-salvageable paragraph to the talk page there is a much higher chance of edit warring and pov pushing. It's almost like moving vandalism to the talk page for discussion. Turtlescrubber 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I didn't catch the cool temperament of your response. And you're right, I should have looked harder at the list. Interesting point on me calling you out by name. I didn't realize how that might be taken but I can see what you mean, so I apologize for that. You might want to take notice of the fact that I didn't actually disagree with taking the paragraph out. It seems to me that if a Wikipedia article reports that someone said somethng (and if he in fact said it), then simply pointing out that a reliable source contradicts it is not original research, but I'll look over WP:OR again. It's something I think could be done best in a line or two, not a section. By the way, I didn't say you were edit warring, I said your language ("vandalism" for instance) could provoke it in someone else. I probably could have been clearer in the way I wrote that. Sorry again. Noroton 21:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked over WP:OR again. It seems to me that this section (the last two paragraphs) show that it wasn't original research. Noroton 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I will apologize if my response was out of hand. I certainly didn't mean it that way but some things don't translate well into text. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say that this isn't original research. I don't see how anything is contradicted. But really, this should have been removed  and it is a mess of original research/pov.   Turtlescrubber 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In the film, Moore states "The United States has the worst infant mortality rate in the Western world" and adds that the U.S. is worse than El Salvador. The Western world is not defined, but it's typically assumed to be any democracy in the world. East v. West comes from Eastern European communism v. Western European democracy. It's not a hemispherical claim, nor does it truly have directional boundaries.  Wikitruthiness 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same claim where he says we were ranked as having only the 37th best health care system? Because if that's the case, from the articles I've been reading about the movie, it's something like a worldwide ranking that has nothing to do with the hemisphere. If this is a different claim, then never mind. Noroton 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Fallacies" section 

message: "Hillary Clinton is accused of being a sell-out for accepting financing for her campaign from the pharmaceutical industry, even if she had tried to introduce full coverage when she had become first lady."  Hillary's health care plan was not "full coverage" as in universal coverage, it was full coverage as in everyone would be required to purchase health care from existing insurers.  That kind of plan is totally different from those found in the other countries profiled and was certainly not a single payer, universal health care system as Moore seems to endorse.  Secondly, the "even if" clause is uncited and seems to be an editor's personal commentary.  Third, since Moore's criticisms of the insurance industry not paying claims to save money would presumably still exist under Hillary's plan, which required everyone to use those same insurers for their coverage, I'm not sure I see the relevance at all of including the "even if" bit unless a defense against her inclusion is given by a reliable source.--Gloriamarie 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Commentary on Clinton? 

message: Does this have anything to do with the movie? Maybe it should be included on the Micheal Moore page:
:When Moore found out that the website MooreWatch would have to close because webmaster Jim Kenefick needed money to pay his sick wife's medical bills, he sent an anonymous check for US $12,000. However, Jim Kenefick disputes Moore's portrayal of the event, and now claims that other donors had provided the necessary funds to maintain the website, although he singled out Moore and a second anonymous benefactor for praise in an earlier entry in which he appealed for a miracle.
68.90.180.130 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be on both pages.  I believe Sicko shows Moore writing the check.JoeCarson 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be in the article