Talk:Sicko/Archive 4

936:. I responded here on the same day you first left a message on my talk page. Your message was left on my talk page at 07:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) and my response here was at 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Please check the time/date stamp above. I also posted on the Sicko talk page my response before I made the edit to the article that you referenced. As to my "false claim" statement, I don't know how else to characterize it. It was, after all, a false claim. It does not necessarily attack your motives. I thought that my statements above made clear what I feel is right, but I will attempt to state them with more clarity. A simple and fair section would be one that is entitled something like "Reactions" and include balanced, substantive responses, both pro and con, from legitimate members of the media (Sean Hannity doesn't qualify), and think tanks. And just to put a sharper point on this, film reviews are not substantive reactions. It's responses to the issues raised that are important. I am busy in the real world so I really don't have time to debate this matter further. If you create a balanced section, as I have suggested, I will no longer have objections. -- 808:

first portion of the Reviews and Reaction section, which is mostly positive, was about 550 words, whereas the Criticism section, which was mostly negative, was about 250 words more than that. I condensed the entire Criticism section by summarizing all the salient critics, the details of their points of criticism, and the rebuttals by those who disagreed with them, getting rid of all those subsections in the process, but keeping every single citation. That section is now about 616 words, which is only about 51 words longer than the positive Reviews/Reaction section. Keep in mind also that the initial portion of Reviews and Reaction, while mostly positive, contains two negative reviews, and that conversely, the Criticism section, which is mostly negative, contains a couple of rebuttals and positive statements about the film. So I think it's mostly balanced now.

1976:, since the sources were initially unclear. In the one other article with a wikileak connection, I made a clarification (to avoid a BLP violation). I have not added a mention of Wikileaks to any article which had not previously had one (though I have reverted a removal). So, please don't lie and attack me. Try to stick to the topic. If all that was going on was the film was released, than I wouldn't write one sentence, we could just list where it was (or wasn't released). This is actually a notable incident, that does not normally happen to films. It's actually much more important, than things like what a couple think tanks think. If there's been any notable responses by officials from other countries mentioned in the film, we should also be mentioning those. -- 998:

Loder, which someone also tried to argue some time ago. The article should include the most prominent reactions from prominent commentators and organizations. Since Hannity is a media hosts from FOX News, had criticism toward the film, and mentioned the work of Canadian filmmakers Browning and Greenberg, omitting this would be unjustifiable. But if you can provide objective criteria by which sources can be considered legitimate and substantive or not, or perhaps show us your hypothetical version of the section in the Sandbox, then please do so. If you can't, then I see no basis to maintain a dispute tag in the article, since such tags are predicated on discussion of the dispute.

1429:

fans editing this article, but this is something that is firmly established: we do not make judgements of this kind when selecting sources. It does not matter one whit whether any of us is personally interested in Sean Hannity's opinions and that is absolutely non-negotiable. There is nothing in Knowledge policy that has a more binding, long-lasting, and firm community-wide consensus than that. With that in mind I would strongly urge you to consider that maybe Nightscream isn't as evil as you make him out to be and that maybe you should take a step back and consider negotiating more politely.

1303:. Whether you arbitrarily relabel this behavior "a clear recall" or "facts" does nothing to change this, as accusations fueled by paranoid antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with you does not constitute a "fact", any more than disagreement constitutes "edit warring". Similarly rhetorical is your assertion that I "ignored others' concerns", as I participated in the discussion here, and the discussion in question didn't last past August 23 anyway. Your accusation now that I am now edit warring is just as bizarre, since I made edits to the article to address the 957: 1209:

participated in the discussion and replied promptly, as is shown above. As to my point about film reviews, most of the ones included here don't really substantively deal with the issues raised in the film. They appear to speak in generalities and address more of the artistic aspect of the film. Also, film reviewers are not really a qualified source when it comes to healthcare issues. And once again, the Hannity issue is not overly important to me, but as Viriditas states, he is not a reliable source. --

321:

names? The fact is, you talked about intent, without providing evidence that either excluded other possible intents, or showed how intent was even relevant, when Knowledge policy prescribes that we not do so. So your statement that you addressed only content is false. As for your coatracking observation, I personally don't see why "Critical reaction" and "Response" are presented as separate sections, so I removed them. That said, the material does seem to be a bit too much, and could be summarized. The

31: 1410:

I expect too much. Your edits are not supported in any way and you need to stop POV pushing against the consensus on this talk page. I've restored the last good version since your latest round of POV pushing. You are welcome to discuss your proposed edits here, first. Please do not restore the Hannity material unless you can argue that it is 1) supported by reliable sources; 2) directly refers to this film 3) is a notable aspect of debate highlighted by other RS, in other words is

1070:. I support this use of the POV tag for this and other reasons. Much of the "legitimate" criticism appears in the further reading section, and has not been added to the article. However, because of POV pushers and edit warriors like Nightscream, I no longer participate in the films project, so I will not be participating in any further improvements. I just wanted to set the record straight on Nightscreams edits in case he decides to continue distorting his record on this topic. 1351:

aspects. Prowler also says that film reviewers are not really a qualified source when it comes to healthcare issues. True, but the article isn't about health care issues. It's about a film. Because the film is about that issue means it's going to include info from both film experts and journalists/columnists/pundits. The film is about health care, but that does not mean an article on the film is. It can only include material to the extent that it bears upon this particular film.

1392:

and NPOV, and they have been addressed in past threads above this one, so I will not repeat myself again. Your argument does not even address the problems with RS or NPOV; instead you claim that because "Hannity is the #2 radio host in the country and the host of a prominent interview show on FOX News" that qualifies him as a RS. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First of all, as it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Hannity's interview is not notable, and has

922:, Canadian critics at Cannes, Roger Friedman and Roger Ebert all emphasize the issue, and not things like camera work, dialogue or editing. And again, since the Reviews section contains some negative comments, and the Criticism section contains a number of positive comments and rebuttals to the criticism, how is it disproportionate or non-neutral? Since Moore's films tend to be controversial, how should the article treat criticism? What would you recommend to fix it? 1147:

posted on my talk page. As indicated above, I stated that I still had objections to the section. In light of my response, I felt that the removal of the tag was not being done in good faith. As to Sean Hannity, whether he is included or not is not overly important to me, but there is no doubt that he would never be considered an objective journalist. I just want to see a balanced article. I don't have the time to change it, but I feel that some editor should. --

1131:

blocked or banned from editing particular articles for otherwise disruptive behavior do we have precedent to remove these tags. You're right that users should not be allowed to put up tags and then refuse to discuss their viewpoints, but I don't see that occurring here. If leaving the tag up keeps him happy while we iron this out on the talk page, can you accept having it in the article in that interim period?

253:. A link to a video of the interview was indeed provided, but because that video was at some point removed from that YouTube user's page, someone removed the link without replacing it with either another version of the video or a citation tag. Please do not make such accusations toward other users unless you can show not only that the material has the 1340:

all, so whether he is an objective one is irrelevant. If he comments on something like this, and interviews other dissenters on the issue, then it would be unjustifiable not to mention it. Whether Browning is interviewed by him or Walter Cronkite is irrelevant, since the passage does not mention any original reporting by Hannity. If it did,

1295:

able to rebut or invalidate. The fact is, Viriditas, that you do not know me, or any intent on my part, and unless you can establish the intent you assert to the exclusion of all other, less nefarious intents (like a sincere difference of opinion), then do so. If not, then you are indeed engaging in an ad hominem attack, which violates

1384:. You also reverted multiple attempts to make the article neutral, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both RS and NPOV, and any attempts to neutralize this article have been reverted by you by with your continual addition of "criticism" sections against best editing practices, in place of directly attributing sources by type: 1896:

other critiques of the film, that we do include. The film deals mainly with the US, and also with Cuba. So, the official reactions from those governments seems important. If anything, we should show more about the American, Cuban, and maybe other countries, official reactions/responses to the film. --

1033:, and so their criticism is not a direct response to the film. Michael Moore acknowledges the 'waiting time(s)' in the Canadian health care system, but argues that many Americans have an exaggerated perception of the issue. Hannity doesn't address that point at all. It just seems a low quality criticism. 992:, or having it pointed out to me that I somehow missed your first response here. I only object to the connotations carried with the phrase "false claim". A more neutral way to characterize it could be "Bolded to emphasize/clarify mistake by Nightscream." But I'll move on from that point if you will. :-) 2083:

Well, aside from using a source whose main findings were about the lack of personal freedom in Cuba...that's an acontextual understanding of why he's talking about healthcare. If he's talking about how healthcare in Cuba commands such a great level of support among the Cuban people, it obviously begs

1957:

the release section. That's it. And it is not important to mention any official in this regard, or even mention or link to WikiLeaks. All that matters in this context is the release history, nothing else. And for the record, I see you've been involved in editing articles related to WikiLeaks. For

1409:

in five separate instances? No, of course not, and this kind of nonsense would not be permitted in any other article. You are engaging in coatracking, and all but admit to it above. I would expect an administrator like yourself to be familiar with basic Knowledge policies and guidelines, but perhaps

1354:

Prowler says media and think tanks are not included in in a way supporting Mooore's contentions. It is not the role of Knowledge articles to support anyone's contentions, any more than it is to refute them. An article's only role is to present relevant information on its topic, and not to judge which

1350:

Prowler says that the reviews "speak in generalities and address more of the artistic aspect of the film." As I pointed out in my Dec 13 post, the comments by Stephen Schaefer, Michael Medved, Variety, Canadian critics at Cannes, Roger Friedman and Roger Ebert all emphasize the issue and not artistic

1239:

that you participate in resolving disputes that you are raising. I'm glad that you are here, now, to discuss this. You object to the criticism section on the ground that the criticisms do not deal with substantive issues in the film and that documentary film makers and film critics are unqualified to

665:

Considering the above comments, it is worth pointing out that if you need to purchase a number of prescriptions you would probably buy a prepayment card which currently costs £28.25 for 3 months or £104 for a year. This fixed cost covers any amount of prescriptions in that time (eg. you could get 100

486:

I did a complete read-thru of the article and my biggest concern is that the article has the feel of many editors adding many bits of information. This is certainly understandable, given the high visibility of the subject matter, but the article would benefit from someone smoothing out the prose and

248:

The material in question was not an ad, "sneaky" or otherwise, nor a "data dump", nor am I a "partisan", as I've never seen Browning's film, and do not have a personal opinion on it. "Sneaky" implies that it was somehow inserted with the intent of escaping notice. How can it be thus if it's placed in

1396:

to do with this article. Hannity's interview is a surreptitious advertisement for Stuart Browning's film, "Uninsured in America", hosted by FreeMarketCure.com. Both Browning and his film are virtually unknown. You do make the claim that "Browning criticized Moore for showing Canadians who did not

1307:

that Dynablaster, Prowler and the anonIP raised right here, I acknowledged my error regarding the lack of responses prior to removing the dispute tag, and I have not contested its restoration for that very reason. If you can explain how this is "edit warring" or "POV pushing", then do so. Otherwise,

1270:

I have to run, a family member is in the hospital and an issue has arisen. There is some confusion because Nightscream deleted the previous title of my post here and then changed the section name on the article. The previous post referenced a section he later renamed. The post was titled "News media

917:

As to the section, how big do you think it should be? It's the same size as the previous section, which seems reasonable, and nowhere near the size that it was before. As for its content, I see no evidence that the Reviews section necessarily focuses on artistic merit rather than the issues, or that

297:

the film. There is very little rhyme or reason to the Response#Media section, and it reads like an unbalanced trivia section. Except for the synopsis and the deleted scenes section there is almost nothing but POV coatracking. Furthermore, Roger Ebert is supposed to appear in the critical reaction

217:

I removed the entire paragraph linked to ref 34 as it appeared to be an sneaky ad for another film, and no source was provided for the interview. The entire section reads like a data dump, with partisans simply unloading whatever they could find. Unless there is some reason why Hannity's interview

1926:

The highest ranking official from the US official in Cuba, is a notable person. His serious comments on Cuba, relative to a film comparing the US and Cuba, are notable. The fact they're noted in a notable publications makes them notable. I think if you compare the importance of this, relative to

1895:

It's not just somebody saying the film wasn't shown. It's somebody in the US government saying the film was banned because the "regime knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash". That's a pretty serious criticism and claim. It's certainly more notable than most of the

1050:

I'm glad to hear that no one is edit warring or making radical changes. I certainly didn't intend to accuse anyone of doing either, and I apologise if that's how I came across; but from past experience with this kind of thing, that's usually where it quickly degenerates. I'm glad to hear that we're

201:

I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this because I'm not sure about the writing style of the Synopsis and, more importantly, the NPOVness of the article. I think I might be projecting my political views on my review (oops! ;) Check your first picture, it needs author info. Also, ref # 34 needs

145:

Whether Moore depicted the Canadian system as an "utopia" is a matter of personal opinion, and not fact. The best way to avoid editor POV influencing the wording of a given passage is to emphasize the attributive nature of the information presented. In other words, make it clear that the opinion in

2033:

The inclusion of the lack of personal freedom reported in used to support Moore's citation of Cuban's support in their healthcare service should stay in. It isn't so much an attack on Moore's views on Cuba or his support for the Cuban healthcare system as it is a balanced presentation of findings

1428:

As you two have explained it here, Nightscream's interpretation of the neutrality policy is much closer to the consensus interpretation than yours. Your (or my) opinions about whether Hannity's editorial remarks about this film are legitimate are not relevant. I think you won't find (m)any Hannity

1391:

from the industry and pudit news response, a separation you continue to try to blur by renaming the non-film criticism section "crticism". This is the kind of POV pushing I'm talking about. Willful, deliberate, purposefull, knowing, and deceitful. Your comments above demonstrate ignorance of RS

1294:

I have not been edit warring or POV pushing, and I refuted Viriditas' accusation to that effect, as well as the specious accusation that I was attempting to "sneak" an adverstisement for a film I had not seen and had no opinion on, right after Viriditas made it, a refutation that Viriditas was not

1146:

I just want to make an ever so brief reply. As to the brouhaha over the following edit summary of mine, which was "Bolded since Nightscream falsely claims there are no objections," I truly don't see that as inappropriate. I only stated it since I had responded here on the same day that Nightscream

892:

that the only problem he had with it was that it still mentioned Sean Hannity, though he declined to go into detail as to why he objected to this, and said he wasn't interested in contesting it further. He made no mention that anything was wrong with the section's proportion. You and 81.154.127.49

807:

was essentially about the same concern. Whereas Prowler and Dynablaster were concerned about the News Media section, User81.154... pointed out that the entire Criticism section was too big. So I merged these two Talk Page sections. As for the article, I did a word count, and was surprised that the

1339:

of Hannity. We do not adjudicate matters of inclusion based on personal viewpoints. We only do so based on objectively measurable issues of noteworthiness or relevance. Hannity is the #2 radio host in the country, and the host of a prominent interview show on FOX News. He is not a "journalist" at

1165:

We understand your concerns. It's disappointing that you don't have time to work on it, but you would have to participate in the editing process if you want to see content disputes resolved. It is not acceptable to place a dispute template on a section and then decline to work on the talk page to

972:

going to be achieved is through edit-warring or through making radical changes to the articles. We need to talk this out, because a consensus version is somewhere in what we already have. If you guys will come to the table over this and not make it personal, then I think we can make good progress

1571:

The response section was very long, dull and clumsy. I cut out unnecessary detail, while trying to preserve the main points of the arguments. I tried to be balanced in cutting from supporters and opponents. All sources but one are retained, but the section should read much easier now, and give a

1374:

Nightscream, you have not been working collaboratively on this article with other editors. Since you began editing here, your edits have been repeatedly described as POV pushing, and fail to adhere to NPOV and use RS. You prefer to force your edits into this article against the wishes of other

320:

When you accuse material of being placed in the article by "partisans" with the intent of "sneaking an ad" into it, you are indeed commenting on editors, regardless of whether you name names. Are you saying that you can violate Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks as long as you do not name

2109:

I don’t think Moore is implying that, in fact that sounds like Original Research unless you can link a valid source claiming that Moore implies that. What Moore is saying is that in Cuba the health service is free and works better for citizens. If we were to extrapolate something from that, I’d

1994:

about this so-called "incident" is notable at all. For our purposes, the only thing important here, is fleshing out the release section. There are a number of editors going from article to article, adding information about WikiLeaks as if it were important, and this seems to be the case here.

1208:

Ryan, here are three points: I did not see the requirement on the NPOV page that I participate in editing the article as to whether or not a POV tag should be placed there. I don't mean that in a rude way but an article either violates NPOV or doesn't. If that is the rule, then so be it. I have

1130:

The first issue to deal with here is whether an NPOV tag should remain on the article. Now, the templates are to alert readers to a dispute that is ongoing on the talk pages. If the presence of a tag is disputed, then it's safe to say that a dispute is occurring. Only in cases where editors are

997:

I do not see an objective measurement by which one can judge news media and think tanks to be "substantive", and film reviews not. Nor can I see any reason beyond a personal dislike of Hannity (one which I share, mind you) to declare him a non-legitimate member of that media, any more than Kurt

363:

poor form to cite and interpret primary sources such as a YouTube video of a non-neutral talk show television program. All sources must be evaluated for authority, accuracy, and currency; Hannity and Browning fail the first two and do not meet the most basic criteria for inclusion. As for the

1311:

Prowler, I'm sorry to hear about your family member. I hope everything works out for him/her and your family. Let me see if I can respond the concerns you and Viriditas raised, even if you may not have the time to respond quickly. You state that the films by Browning and Greenberg's films were

1271:

section violates WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV." My problem is with the size of the criticism section and that legitimate and qualified media and think tanks are generally not included in the article in a way supporting Mooore's contentions. This makes the article one-sided. I must go now. --

1606:

On the whole, I think these cuts are good for the article and remove some of the point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint nonsense. This passage, I think, needs to remain because it is a substantive criticism of the argument made in the film. It would be unfair to remove criticism of Moore's

490:

My second biggest concern is that the article could be trimmer -- it's a bit flabby right now. For example, it's mentioned twice that the film received a standing ovation at Cannes. For example, is it important to say that the Austin Chronicle puts this film at 8th best for the year??

1316:, and are not direct responses to the film. Who says they have to be? They are responses to the general issue of the Canadian hc system, and Americans' perception thereof, which is why Loder and Hannity brought up these films, and interviewed them. That they did this in response to 1596:

Stossel also presented testimonials that lower Cuban infant mortality rates are due to pregnant women receiving abortions if the fetus shows any sign of problems, and that infants who die hours after birth are not recorded in mortality rates. When Moore claimed the

2092:. So in essence what Moore is implying is that Cuba's quality of life is higher than that of the US's...which is fine. But of course they aren't the only indexes for measuring quality of life as the personal freedom topic in the survey that moore quotes shows. 2110:

actually say that Moore is implying that in a country where the quality of life is LOWER than in the US the health service is better. But of course that would be Original Research too, so I think that leaving that survey out is the only sensible solution.

415:

Agreed. It was broken up into the appropriate sub-sections just last week, but Nightscream removed them for some reason. The prose is certainly atrocious, and much of it is coatracked, non-notable interpretations of primary sources and should be deleted.

901:

that no one had any objections. That this observation on my part was incorrect, and that maybe I should've waited a bit longer, is duly noted, but that does not make it a "false claim", which sounds like an accusation of lying, and would be a violation of

2084:

the question of what point he's trying to prove. Fortunately, as Moore answers, it goes much more than proving the alleged superiority of Cuba's healthcare system over the US's, but into broader issues such as life expectancy and infant mortality rate (

1346:

issues of journalism and reliability would arguably come into play. If you eliminate mention of anyone who's "not objective", you'd have to include Michael Moore himself in that regard, and anyone who had an opinion on controversial issues like this.

392:

Just a comment: The "Critical reaction" section is rather long — perhaps it should be broken up into sub-sections? Parts of it are also very choppy, with one- and two-sentence paragraphs; prose like that is not GA-quality, IMHO. Also, I haven't seen

298:

section, not the Response#Media. The WBAI Radio reference should appear in a separate "activism" or "campaign" section, which is what it is describing. So, when you remove those two sources and place them in the correct context, you are left with

528:

Note the 6th paragraph in the "Deleted scenes" heading. The last part of the sentence states: ..."that the film has been documenting in other nations within the USA." This needs clarification, as it implies there are other nations within the US.

1740:

Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana.

1690:

has more than a paragraph of counterclaims and accusations, some details of which aren't really even about the film. A brief mention in the film might be enough to warrant one or two lines of response, but not this much. As discussed before

350:

the statement it is allegedly referencing. When one follows the citation, the following appears: "FreeMarketCure.com, the official site of the film Uninsured in America". So this is a note, not a reference. In short, this is a

302:

paragraphs, all cherry picked for their negative portrayal of the film and tangential explorations into issues that have nothing to do with the film. This is a breach of NPOV and the best example of coatracking I have ever seen.

1607:

presentation of healthcare arguments in the film on the grounds that those arguments should go into healthcare related articles, because that would ban all criticism of the film except stylistic criticism.

1166:

resolve the dispute. We'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this here, but if you want Hannity removed, you're going to have to provide a rationale for why that wins consensus from the other editors here.

710: 150:

by naming the journalist in question, Peter Howell, and by directly quoting the words that appear in his piece, "praised" (which appears three times in his article) and "flawless". What do you think?

918:

even the reviewers make such a distinction. Indeed, is it possible to separate the two for an issue-centered documentary like this? The specific comments quoted by Stephen Schaefer, Michael Medved,

812:

is the entire Diff between the way the article was before, before I addressed Prowler and Dynablaster's concerns, and now, after having addressed User81.154...'s. Let me know what you guys think.

1958:

people who don't know, there are a group of editors going from article to article, adding mention of WikiLeaks cables as if they demand encyclopedic attention. And, this obviously, does not.

1397:

experience long waits for care, to the exclusion of those who did, asserting that the nature of Canada's system is widely known, though not in the U.S." Why is this criticism notable when it

1066:

For the record, Nightscream has been edit warring over various issues in this article for some time and appears to be POV pushing as well. I previously discussed this problem with his edits

951: 1387:

The film received a 93% approval rating from film critics, and only contains negative film reviews in proportion to its critical reception. This is also why the film criticism section is

2573: 2473: 2357: 2229: 249:

the article for everyone to read? It was an interview by Hannity of Stuart Browning, whose film disputes Moore's picture of Canadian health care, which makes it relevant to criticism of

401:, the language parameter should include multiple languages "only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films". I don't think this film is, so I've changed it accordingly. 1766:. It was aired on national television. But, there are multiple false news stories, so we have to present this in a careful balanced manner, and have to avoid any single source. -- 1446:. This focus on Hannity is ridiculous and is a straw man argument. His inclusion is not important one way or the other. The main problem is the lack of a pro and con balance in the 1355:

side is "right". As long as such info is summarized in the article, the reader can form their own opinions, and the article indeed summarizes think tanks that are both pro and anti-

2591: 2587: 2375: 2371: 2247: 2243: 1106:

that was not resolved, and found Nightscream ignoring the concerns raised then, and edit warring just as he is doing now. I'm sorry if the facts are upsetting, but there it is.

134:

Since Michael Moore never depicted the Canadian health care system as "utopia", nor anything closely resembling it, how might we reword this sentence to improve the section? —

1335:

Prowler stated that Hannity does not address a certain point that he would've liked him to. But this is not required for inclusion in a WP article. Rather, this is Prowler's

1235:

I think that there is no rule that "requires" that you participate in talk page discussion. Knowledge does not have firm rules in that sense. What I would say is that it is

736:

Almost all of the examples in the News media section are critical of the film. It is also one of the largest sections in the article. The section is a flagrant violation of

692:

In an attempt to reduce some of the POV, I changed many instances of "free healthcare " to "government-sponsored healthcare ". This was reverted. I will now change it to "

730: 346:. I said that the material appeared to be a sneaky ad for another film and no source was provided for the interview. Both of my statements are valid, as the source cited 926: 715:

What do you think? It almost dwarfs all other content where it doesn't equal it. Make a seperate page; it's sprawling and barely understandable the way it looks now.

1610:

Maybe there is some way to refactor this information so that it would disturb the flow of the article less, and I would be very happy to look into compromise revisions.

1088:

It is not productive to make ad hominems like this. Disputes are resolved on merit through discussion that results in reasonable consensus, not character assassination.

753: 2451: 2150: 466:

I'll help out here. I made a couple of edits that I hope reduce the POV. I also believe that the "Critical reaction" section should be broken down. More to come.

1359:. Viriditas mentioned that sources in the further reading section could be added to this summary. Sounds good to me. I'll try to add some of it when I get a chance. 677: 540: 2121: 608: 1666:

The film received plenty of praise from all quarters (even Fox News!). But it was directed by Michael Moore, so only negative commentary sticks like superglue.

1838:

So, now, what's always seemed obvious, has been confirmed by The Gaurdian. Obvously the film was shown throughout Cuba, and the reference is in there now. --

639:"only a fixed amount of £6.65 per item on a prescription is charged (e.g 5 items on a single perscription would cost £35.50), irrespective of cost to the NHS." 1881:

I fail to see the importance. Someone said something about the film not being shown in Cuba which later turned out to be false. Why is this in the article?

365: 1405:, under Stossel, Loder, Fraser Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis respectively? Is there a significant reason you need to repeat the 2553: 2474:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070815230731/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla

1125: 1675: 372:. I also note that instead of fixing the problem, you spent your time edit warring with another editor. I stand by my original comments. See also: 2503: 1560: 132:"Some Canadian journalists attending the premiere were less complimentary, objecting to the utopian depiction of the Canadian health care system..." 1681: 804: 2323: 202:

help. It's a pretty good article though, I just want to make sure everything's fine. I'll try and be of more help sometime when I'm not so tired!

2197: 2477: 2533: 1375:

editors. This has been going on for a long time. You've been edit warring over the Hannity material since August, when you reverted me and

284: 522: 475: 1708: 241: 227: 1042: 790: 2139:

Not that is too relevant, but the article reads "appear to sail from Miami to Cuba"; as I recall, they were motor boats, not sail boat.

1626:

This interview with Wendell Potter must be of interest. He describes the health insurance industry's plan to discredit Michael Moore and

410: 2513: 2493: 1867:

Care to explain your opinion. An official diplomatic cable of the US seems more important than much of the comments about the film. --

1423: 1012: 945: 897:

seemed to indicate that you were active, and had therefore received my message, the conclusion that I was forced to come to was that it

856: 768: 439: 385: 312: 1003:

Ryan, no one is edit warring or making "radical" changes. The changes I did make, I made at the behest of Prowler and the others here.

425: 2639: 1812: 1489: 1471: 1438: 1280: 1249: 1218: 1193: 1175: 1156: 1115: 1097: 1079: 968:. You both obviously want the article to be improved, but it remains to be determined how that is going to be achieved. One way it is 2004: 1985: 1967: 1936: 1919: 1905: 1890: 1876: 1862: 1660: 1511: 657: 630: 2569:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2523: 2452:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070603170813/http://www.inthenews.co.uk/entertainment/film/moore-unveils-sicko-at-cannes-$ 1086968.htm

2207: 2101: 2078: 2069:

does not advance the view that Fidel Castro is a swell guy and that Cuban's are happy with every other aspect of their daily lives.

681: 612: 447:

If someone wants to take over the GAN review of this article, feel free to do so. Just be sure to add your name under the entry on

369: 355:. The source offered does not support the statement (Hannity interviewed Stuart Browning) and Browning and his film are virtually 1764: 173: 159: 1775: 705: 603:

I've just watched the film and it's not £7.10 at all, it's £6.65. Can somebody just back me up on whether that's right or not? -

1477: 2543: 2421: 359:. Furthermore, there is not a single reliable source that documents the Hannity/Browning interview as a notable event. It is 1581: 93:

Well, this article is about the film, not the debate over universal health care. For a general overview of the topic, look at

2293: 1601:

corroborated his assertions, Stossel responded that the C.I.A. denied this, and that their data contradict Moore's assertion.

869: 2455: 1060: 982: 364:

overwhelming evidence for partisan conflict on this page, I suggest you read through the talk archives, the five RfC's, the

2146: 1651:

Were there only negative responses in US-media on the film? Or why are there only bad critics mentioned in the article? --

687: 598: 2065:―and the single result that Moore adduced to support his film―is the conclusion of the survey in relation to health care. 1502:

Hannity is a respected source firstly. The tag should go. It's not being defended honestly, it's just gaming the system.

1320:

is all that is needed to make them relevant to an article on that film. They do not need to be made in direct response to

885: 2483: 1641: 1586: 722: 673: 584: 536: 121: 113: 1308:

stop violating WP policy with personal attacks that do nothing to improve the article or contribute to the discussion.

889: 881: 2154: 2117: 2034:

from the survey (I'd also add that the personal freedom issue is the main focus of the article judging from the title).

604: 544: 2554:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071021040826/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=4526

877: 592: 2426: 2298: 1787: 106: 2443: 2315: 1180:

Prowler is 100% correct. Hannity does not meet the criteria for RS. It's pretty simple. I covered this in August (

503: 1656: 1566: 1542: 1526:

I made when I added Meegan O'Hara as a producer. I have two sources (so far) that state Meegan O'Hara is producer,

1462:

would be a more useful source than, for example, a three-minute segment on a television pundit's daily program." --

451:

and remove mine. Sorry, but I have a lot coming up, and I won't be able to devote enough time to this nom. Thanks.

343: 1847: 1833: 460: 211: 2504:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070809215438/http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/setting-the-record-straight/

2160: 513:? I'm incredibly busy at the moment. My apologies to those who have had to wait so long for this to pass. <:) 2590:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2374:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2246:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2061:

the issue. The Gallup poll covers all of these things, but Michael Moore does not. The only section relevant to

843:

section deals more with the artistic value of the film than the issues raised. Although I appreciate your work,

2324:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080315093348/http://www.moorewatch.com:80/index.php/weblog/comments/mikeys_motive/

2125: 1757: 336: 2557: 2198:

https://web.archive.org/20090705223928/http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21761631-5005961,00.html

1972:

Yah, it's a big conspiracy, which you exposed! In the case of this article, my first edit was to actually to

1910:

Huh? The claim is neither serious nor important. It adds nothing to the article except a link to WikiLeaks.

1824:

eliciting pro Bush responses from Iranian moviegoers. The source had sufficient motive not to tell the truth.

1368: 2478:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla

555:

I have not had any response in the past 10 days to this posting, so I'm failing this GA nomination. Thanks,

268: 139: 2534:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070516183815/http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=9778

1414:

and not repeated by other sources already in the aritcle; and 4) prove notability of Browning and his film.

1140: 2634: 2043: 1646: 1531: 564: 481: 263:

to the exclusion of other, less nefarious intents. Failing to do this could be construed as a violation of

2461: 2201: 1727: 2507: 1652: 1621: 1534:

the second one is a little blurry. The picture is an absolute reliable source a because it is official.--

693: 624: 272: 2609:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2393:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2265:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2442:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2314:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1558: 1540: 648:

Other than the spelling mistake, which I'm about to correct, 5 * £6.65 is £33.25 not £35.50 as stated.

38: 1973: 1523: 1382: 894: 809: 778: 666:

items in 3 months and would still only pay £28.25). Also, the current single item cost is now £7.20.

147: 2514:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071021041247/http://sicko.ncpa.org/moores-sicko-could-put-lives-at-risk

2494:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194627/http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=9996

2327: 84: 2537: 518: 456: 207: 2625: 2524:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101204161932/http://urban.org/health_policy/about/newsarchive12.cfm

2208:

https://web.archive.org/20071011070420/http://michaelmoore.com:80/sicko/news/article.php?id=10226

1713: 1696: 1385: 1380: 726: 588: 126: 117: 2594:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2378:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2250:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

932:

Please get your facts straight. Your assertion about a late or lack of a response on my part is

2610: 2439: 2394: 2266: 2134: 741: 653: 569: 189: 2467: 2211: 2597: 2527: 2517: 2497: 2413: 2381: 2285: 2253: 1671: 1637: 1577: 1553: 1535: 1364: 1038: 1008: 817: 786: 764: 398: 332: 280: 155: 94: 2544:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071104071442/http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/dvd/extras.html

1021:

The problem I have with Sean Hannity is that he is interviewing two people whose own films,

2617: 2401: 2348: 2273: 2142: 2113: 1808: 718: 701: 669: 580: 560: 532: 499: 471: 435: 406: 69: 64: 59: 8: 2456:

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/entertainment/film/moore-unveils-sicko-at-cannes-$ 1086968.htm

2000: 1963: 1915: 1886: 1858: 1617: 1485: 1467: 1436: 1419: 1276: 1247: 1214: 1189: 1173: 1152: 1138: 1111: 1095: 1075: 1058: 980: 941: 852: 749: 550: 514: 452: 421: 381: 308: 237: 223: 203: 104: 876:

to object, as I had left messages on Talk Pages of the three people who commented here:

218:

is notable here, and unless an actual source can be provided, it should remain deleted.

2576:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2563: 2360:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2232:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2097: 2074: 2039: 1981: 1932: 1901: 1872: 1843: 1829: 1771: 1704: 1296: 956: 911: 290: 264: 2616:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2484:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071217231246/http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/4660/17632.aspx

2400:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2272:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

988:

As I stated before, I have no problem with the notion that my prior understanding was

2179: 1853:

It's a non-issue, unencyclopedic, and trivial. It shouldn't even be in the article.

744:. If it is not trimmed, with pro Sicko media accounts added, it should be deleted. -- 649: 618:

Yeah, it's £6.65, repeated several times during that interview. Changed accordingly.

181: 2547: 2409: 2281: 2028: 1667: 1633: 1573: 1549: 1527: 1517: 1507: 1360: 1034: 1004: 923: 907: 813: 782: 760: 328: 276: 151: 2311: 2187: 2173: 1804: 1792: 1181: 1103: 1067: 697: 556: 495: 467: 431: 402: 323: 289:

My comments addressed content, not a particular editor. This content is blatant

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1996: 1959: 1911: 1882: 1854: 1611: 1481: 1463: 1430: 1415: 1272: 1241: 1210: 1185: 1167: 1148: 1132: 1107: 1089: 1071: 1052: 974: 965: 937: 868:

First of all, please do not accuse anyone of making "false claims", as you did

848: 803:

Okay, right after making the above post, I notice that the section right above

745: 737: 696:", which is the wikipedia article which explains this sort of system. Thanks, 417: 377: 373: 304: 233: 219: 193: 98: 2582:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2487: 2366:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2238:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1631: 1450:. But since there seems to be an obsession with Hannity, here is a quote from 2093: 2070: 2035: 1977: 1928: 1897: 1868: 1839: 1825: 1767: 1700: 1300: 903: 510: 448: 2558:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=4526

1699:: how moorewatch encouraged its readers to get involved with this article. 1451: 196:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 964:

I think we all could use a time out here, as things are obviously getting

2583: 2367: 2239: 1692: 1503: 2184:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1454:: "Generally speaking, a board editorial from a major newspaper such as 2462:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21761631-5005961,00.html

2202:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21761631-5005961,00.html

1750: 619: 47: 17: 2508:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/setting-the-record-straight/

1723: 2085: 1444:

I'm going to say it for the umpteenth time, Hannity is not the issue

711:

Criticism section (formerly called the News media section): Enormous

1376: 169: 135: 2328:

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mikeys_motive/

2192:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1051:

all committed to dispute resolution. With that, on to the issues.

2538:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=9778

342:

Intothewoods29 expressed concern with reference 34. I responded

293:, and the Response#Media section is out of proportion to content 1927:

other comments/reactions to the film, it ranks pretty high. --

1598: 888:. After two days, the only one to respond was Dynablaster, who 2435: 2307: 2169: 839:

section is still disproportionate to other sections, and the

574:

Why did you undo my inclusion of a review by Michael Medved.

2333:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2217:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

232:

I made some changes to the synopsis to improve readability.

2468:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10226

2212:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10226

2528:

http://www.urban.org/health_policy/about/newsarchive12.cfm

2518:

http://sicko.ncpa.org/moores-sicko-could-put-lives-at-risk

2498:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=9996

2446:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2318:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1695:

blogs aren't reliable sources, per WP:RS. Also discussed

146:

question is that of the person named in the cited source.

1945:, not the person. It's not important unless we are very 781:

the details in that section. Let me know what you think.

275:. Your other edits, however, were well-made, IMO. Kudos. 509:

Super. Thanks. Could you please take over the review at

2168:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

1572:

better and quicker overview over the responses. Cheers

1240:

issue opinions on public health policy. Is that right?

872:. I made no false claim, I merely observed that no one 1552:

is the credits of the film from the offical website.--

353:

surreptitious advertisement for Stuart Browning's film

2586:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2564:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113385/site/newsweek/

2370:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2242:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1949:noting the release history, in which case a simple 259:of advertisement, but that you can illustrate this 2548:http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/dvd/extras.html 960:Try to stay on the top 3 levels of this pyramid. 1184:) when Nighscream was edit warring previously. 1102:There's no ad hominem, but a clear recall of a 2572:This message was posted before February 2018. 2356:This message was posted before February 2018. 2228:This message was posted before February 2018. 1763:The problem is that it wasn't banned in Cuba 2488:http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/4660/17632.aspx 805:the one that these posts were originally in 2434:I have just modified 13 external links on 2306:I have just modified one external link on 1328:them as dealing with the issues raised in 759:I made exactly the same point months ago. 893:didn't respond after two days, and since 636:Is my maths wrong here, the article reads 1682:Does a blogsite deserve such prominence? 955: 89:Not sure where this was supposed to go: 14: 1324:in order for pundits or columnists to 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2345:to let others know (documentation at 1591:I've restored the following passage: 1733: 895:your continuing edits of the article 112:Otherwise all prior text preserved. 25: 2088:) which are indexes for a nation's 1726:info), the film was banned in Cuba: 23: 1953:noting the release is sufficient, 24: 2650: 2438:. Please take a moment to review 2310:. Please take a moment to review 2172:. Please take a moment to review 2086:http://sickothemovie.com/checkup/ 1548:And finally to seal my argument 29: 2562:Corrected formatting/usage for 2466:Corrected formatting/usage for 2460:Corrected formatting/usage for 1784:Moore has addressed the issue 327:article has the same problem. 13: 1: 2640:08:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC) 2294:19:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 2057:the issue. Transportation is 2005:01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC) 1986:18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1968:10:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1937:10:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1920:09:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1906:09:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1891:09:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1877:09:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1863:09:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1848:08:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 1834:14:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 1813:06:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 1776:17:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1758:03:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1561:04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 1543:04:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 1512:20:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 1490:18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 1472:22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 1439:14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 1424:01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 1369:22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1281:04:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1250:04:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1219:03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1194:03:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1176:03:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1157:03:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1141:02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1116:03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1098:03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1080:03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1061:02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1043:03:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 1013:01:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 983:00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 946:21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 927:19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 857:16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 731:02:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC) 565:03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 1990:There is no indication that 1676:01:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 1661:04:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 1582:10:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 791:07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 769:01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 754:00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 688:Government-sponsored vs Free 631:19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 599:Cost of pharmacy goods in UK 7: 1587:Stossel on abortion in Cuba 706:04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 694:publicly-funded health care 613:12:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 593:02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 545:04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 523:17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 504:16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 476:22:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 461:00:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 440:22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 426:09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 411:01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 386:11:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 337:03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 10: 2655: 2603:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2431:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2387:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2303:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2259:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2190:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2165:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2155:05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 2126:17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 2102:21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2079:07:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2044:00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 658:00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 366:COI noticeboard discussion 313:09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 285:18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 242:16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 228:16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 212:16:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1709:22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC) 1686:The article's subsection 1642:23:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 845:my objection still stands 174:20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 160:01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 140:23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 2422:05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 1567:trimmed response section 952:Let's everyone stay cool 682:16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 122:06:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 107:01:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2427:External links modified 2299:External links modified 2161:External links modified 1941:Importance in terms of 1029:, were released before 890:told me on my Talk Page 2053:the issue. Housing is 1653:Otto Normalverbraucher 961: 779:trimmed and summarized 269:WP:No Personal Attacks 1480:the quote I cited. -- 959: 399:Template:Infobox Film 95:Universal health care 42:of past discussions. 2584:regular verification 2368:regular verification 2240:regular verification 2225:to let others know. 2176:. If necessary, add 1647:News Media responses 1023:Uninsured in America 841:Reviews and reaction 370:proposed arbcom case 273:WP:Assume Good Faith 2574:After February 2018 2358:After February 2018 2337:parameter below to 2230:After February 2018 2221:parameter below to 1622:Bill Moyers Journal 397:, but according to 2628:InternetArchiveBot 2579:InternetArchiveBot 2363:InternetArchiveBot 2235:InternetArchiveBot 1697:in another archive 1460:The New York Times 1456:The Times of India 1448:News media section 1337:personal criticism 962: 934:entirely incorrect 2604: 2420: 2388: 2292: 2260: 2145:comment added by 2116:comment added by 1748: 1747: 1614: 1522:Somebody changed 1433: 1244: 1170: 1135: 1092: 1055: 977: 721:comment added by 672:comment added by 633: 595: 583:comment added by 535:comment added by 101: 85:Archive 3 Created 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2646: 2638: 2629: 2602: 2601: 2580: 2416: 2415:Talk to my owner 2411: 2386: 2385: 2364: 2352: 2288: 2287:Talk to my owner 2283: 2258: 2257: 2236: 2191: 2183: 2157: 2128: 2049:One-man rule is 1802: 1797: 1755: 1734: 1612: 1556: 1538: 1431: 1312:released before 1305:precise concerns 1242: 1168: 1133: 1090: 1053: 975: 733: 684: 628: 578: 547: 348:does not support 168:That is fair. — 99: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2632: 2627: 2595: 2588:have permission 2578: 2444:this simple FaQ 2429: 2419: 2414: 2379: 2372:have permission 2362: 2346: 2316:this simple FaQ 2301: 2291: 2286: 2251: 2244:have permission 2234: 2185: 2177: 2163: 2140: 2137: 2111: 2090:quality of life 2031: 1822:Fahrenheit 9/11 1820:Reminiscent of 1798: 1793: 1751: 1716: 1714:Banned in Cuba? 1684: 1649: 1624: 1589: 1569: 1554: 1536: 1520: 1401:in the article 1399:already appears 1128: 1104:past discussion 954: 742:WP:Undue weight 716: 713: 690: 667: 627: 601: 572: 553: 530: 484: 482:A new read-thru 188:This review is 184: 129: 127:Utopia strawman 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2652: 2622: 2621: 2614: 2567: 2566: 2560: 2552:Added archive 2550: 2542:Added archive 2540: 2532:Added archive 2530: 2522:Added archive 2520: 2512:Added archive 2510: 2502:Added archive 2500: 2492:Added archive 2490: 2482:Added archive 2480: 2472:Added archive 2470: 2464: 2458: 2450:Added archive 2428: 2425: 2412: 2406: 2405: 2398: 2331: 2330: 2322:Added archive 2300: 2297: 2284: 2278: 2277: 2270: 2215: 2214: 2206:Added archive 2204: 2196:Added archive 2162: 2159: 2147:186.109.193.14 2136: 2135:Did they sail? 2133: 2131: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1779: 1778: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1731: 1715: 1712: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1648: 1645: 1623: 1620: 1604: 1603: 1588: 1585: 1568: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1160: 1159: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1083: 1082: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1016: 1015: 1000: 999: 994: 993: 953: 950: 949: 948: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 796: 795: 794: 793: 772: 771: 712: 709: 689: 686: 663: 662: 661: 660: 643: 642: 641: 640: 637: 623: 600: 597: 571: 570:Michael Medved 568: 552: 549: 526: 525: 515:Intothewoods29 483: 480: 479: 478: 453:Intothewoods29 445: 444: 443: 442: 428: 389: 388: 318: 317: 316: 315: 245: 244: 230: 204:Intothewoods29 199: 198: 194:Talk:Sicko/GA1 183: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 163: 162: 128: 125: 110: 109: 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2651: 2642: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2630: 2619: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2599: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2575: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2463: 2459: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2424: 2423: 2417: 2410: 2403: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2383: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2359: 2354: 2350: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2304: 2296: 2295: 2289: 2282: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2255: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2231: 2226: 2224: 2220: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2181: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2158: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2132: 2129: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1801: 1796: 1790: 1789: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1743: 1739: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1718:According to 1711: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1619: 1618: 1616: 1608: 1602: 1600: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1584: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1539: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1435: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1344: 1338: 1333: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1251: 1248: 1246: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1172: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1094: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1059: 1057: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001: 996: 995: 991: 987: 986: 985: 984: 981: 979: 971: 967: 958: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 930: 929: 928: 925: 921: 915: 913: 909: 905: 900: 896: 891: 887: 886:81.154.127.49 883: 879: 875: 871: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 819: 815: 811: 806: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 774: 773: 770: 766: 762: 758: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 734: 732: 728: 724: 723:81.154.127.49 720: 708: 707: 703: 699: 695: 685: 683: 679: 675: 674:86.129.184.82 671: 659: 655: 651: 647: 646: 645: 644: 638: 635: 634: 632: 626: 621: 617: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 596: 594: 590: 586: 585:76.114.10.143 582: 575: 567: 566: 562: 558: 548: 546: 542: 538: 537:65.121.210.37 534: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 492: 488: 487:structure. 477: 473: 469: 465: 464: 463: 462: 458: 454: 450: 441: 437: 433: 429: 427: 423: 419: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 391: 390: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 362: 358: 354: 349: 345: 341: 340: 339: 338: 334: 330: 326: 325: 314: 310: 306: 301: 296: 292: 288: 287: 286: 282: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 257: 252: 247: 246: 243: 239: 235: 231: 229: 225: 221: 216: 215: 214: 213: 209: 205: 197: 195: 191: 186: 185: 175: 171: 167: 166: 165: 164: 161: 157: 153: 149: 144: 143: 142: 141: 137: 133: 124: 123: 119: 115: 114:74.78.162.229 108: 105: 103: 96: 92: 91: 90: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2626: 2623: 2598:source check 2577: 2571: 2568: 2433: 2430: 2407: 2382:source check 2361: 2355: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2332: 2305: 2302: 2279: 2254:source check 2233: 2227: 2222: 2218: 2216: 2167: 2164: 2138: 2130: 2118:200.67.138.7 2108: 2089: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2032: 1991: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1943:this article 1942: 1837: 1821: 1819: 1799: 1794: 1785: 1752: 1749: 1730: 1720:The Guardian 1719: 1717: 1687: 1685: 1650: 1627: 1625: 1609: 1605: 1595: 1590: 1570: 1521: 1478:Ryan deleted 1459: 1455: 1447: 1443: 1411: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1342: 1341: 1336: 1334: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1310: 1304: 1293: 1236: 1129: 1049: 1030: 1026: 1022: 989: 969: 963: 933: 919: 916: 898: 873: 867: 844: 840: 836: 735: 714: 691: 664: 650:KlickingKarl 605:92.21.151.27 602: 576: 573: 554: 527: 494:More later, 493: 489: 485: 446: 394: 360: 356: 352: 347: 322: 319: 299: 294: 260: 255: 254: 250: 200: 187: 131: 130: 111: 88: 75: 43: 37: 2349:Sourcecheck 2141:—Preceding 2112:—Preceding 1693:in archive1 1668:Dynablaster 1634:Dynablaster 1574:Jasy jatere 1476:I see that 1361:Nightscream 1297:WP:Civility 1035:Dynablaster 1005:Nightscream 924:Nightscream 912:WP:Civility 882:Dynablaster 814:Nightscream 783:Nightscream 761:Dynablaster 717:—Preceding 668:—Preceding 579:—Preceding 531:—Preceding 329:Nightscream 291:coatracking 277:Nightscream 265:WP:Civility 256:sole effect 190:transcluded 152:Nightscream 36:This is an 2635:Report bug 1722:(based on 1688:moorewatch 1555:intraining 1537:intraining 1407:same claim 1403:four times 403:Mr. Absurd 368:, and the 148:I did that 97:. Cheers, 18:Talk:Sicko 2618:this tool 2611:this tool 2402:this tool 2395:this tool 2274:this tool 2267:this tool 1997:Viriditas 1974:remove it 1960:Viriditas 1912:Viriditas 1883:Viriditas 1855:Viriditas 1724:Wikileaks 1524:this edit 1482:Prowler08 1464:Prowler08 1416:Viriditas 1273:Prowler08 1211:Prowler08 1186:Viriditas 1149:Prowler08 1108:Viriditas 1072:Viriditas 1027:Dead Meat 990:incorrect 966:heated up 938:Prowler08 908:WP:Attack 849:Prowler08 837:Criticism 746:Prowler08 430:Agreed. 418:Viriditas 378:Viriditas 361:extremely 305:Viriditas 234:Viriditas 220:Viriditas 182:GA Review 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2624:Cheers.— 2408:Cheers.— 2280:Cheers.— 2180:cbignore 2143:unsigned 2114:unsigned 2094:Sleetman 2071:Wikispan 2036:Sleetman 2029:Pew Poll 1992:anything 1951:sentence 1826:Wikispan 1786:---: --> 1701:PrBeacon 1615:ausa کui 1518:Producer 1434:ausa کui 1389:separate 1377:User:E0N 1245:ausa کui 1237:expected 1171:ausa کui 1136:ausa کui 1126:NPOV tag 1093:ausa کui 1056:ausa کui 978:ausa کui 777:Okay, I 719:unsigned 670:unsigned 581:unsigned 533:unsigned 324:Expelled 102:ausa کui 2440:my edit 2418::Online 2335:checked 2312:my edit 2290::Online 2219:checked 2174:my edit 1947:briefly 1800:thoreau 1394:nothing 920:Variety 914:, etc. 740:as per 738:WP:NPOV 374:WP:DUCK 357:unknown 39:archive 2343:failed 2188:nobots 1599:C.I.A. 1504:JJJ999 1412:unique 1301:WP:AGF 973:here. 904:WP:AGF 899:seemed 884:, and 874:seemed 698:Madman 577:Huh? 557:Madman 551:Failed 511:WP:GAN 496:Madman 468:Madman 449:WP:GAN 432:Madman 261:intent 2436:Sicko 2308:Sicko 2170:Sicko 2067:Sicko 2063:Sicko 1753:Kelly 1628:Sicko 1452:WP:Rs 1379:here: 1357:Sicko 1330:Sicko 1322:Sicko 1318:Sicko 1314:Sicko 1031:Sicko 620:GeeJo 395:Sicko 300:seven 295:about 251:Sicko 192:from 16:< 2339:true 2223:true 2151:talk 2122:talk 2098:talk 2075:talk 2040:talk 2001:talk 1982:talk 1964:talk 1933:talk 1916:talk 1902:talk 1887:talk 1873:talk 1859:talk 1844:talk 1830:talk 1809:talk 1788:here 1772:talk 1705:talk 1672:talk 1657:talk 1638:talk 1578:talk 1550:this 1532:here 1530:and 1528:here 1508:talk 1486:talk 1468:talk 1420:talk 1365:talk 1343:then 1326:cite 1277:talk 1215:talk 1190:talk 1182:here 1153:talk 1112:talk 1076:talk 1068:here 1039:talk 1025:and 1009:talk 942:talk 870:here 853:talk 847:. -- 835:The 818:talk 810:This 787:talk 765:talk 750:talk 727:talk 702:talk 678:talk 654:talk 609:talk 589:talk 561:talk 541:talk 519:talk 500:talk 472:talk 457:talk 436:talk 422:talk 407:talk 382:talk 344:here 333:talk 309:talk 281:talk 271:and 238:talk 224:talk 208:talk 156:talk 118:talk 2592:RfC 2556:to 2546:to 2536:to 2526:to 2516:to 2506:to 2496:to 2486:to 2476:to 2454:to 2376:RfC 2353:). 2341:or 2326:to 2248:RfC 2210:to 2200:to 2059:not 2055:not 2051:not 1978:Rob 1929:Rob 1898:Rob 1869:Rob 1840:Rob 1795:Red 1791:. 1768:Rob 1458:or 970:not 878:You 625:(c) 170:eon 136:eon 2605:. 2600:}} 2596:{{ 2389:. 2384:}} 2380:{{ 2351:}} 2347:{{ 2261:. 2256:}} 2252:{{ 2186:{{ 2182:}} 2178:{{ 2153:) 2124:) 2100:) 2077:) 2042:) 2003:) 1984:) 1966:) 1955:in 1935:) 1918:) 1904:) 1889:) 1875:) 1861:) 1846:) 1832:) 1811:) 1805:-- 1774:) 1744:” 1737:“ 1707:) 1674:) 1659:) 1640:) 1630:. 1580:) 1510:) 1488:) 1470:) 1422:) 1367:) 1332:. 1279:) 1217:) 1192:) 1155:) 1114:) 1078:) 1041:) 1011:) 944:) 910:, 906:, 880:, 855:) 789:) 767:) 752:) 729:) 704:) 680:) 656:) 629:• 611:) 591:) 563:) 543:) 521:) 502:) 474:) 459:) 438:) 424:) 409:) 384:) 376:. 335:) 311:) 283:) 267:, 240:) 226:) 210:) 172:, 158:) 138:, 120:) 2637:) 2633:( 2620:. 2613:. 2404:. 2397:. 2276:. 2269:. 2149:( 2120:( 2096:( 2073:( 2038:( 1999:( 1980:( 1962:( 1931:( 1914:( 1900:( 1885:( 1871:( 1857:( 1842:( 1828:( 1807:( 1770:( 1703:( 1670:( 1655:( 1636:( 1613:⟳ 1576:( 1506:( 1484:( 1466:( 1432:⟳ 1418:( 1363:( 1299:/ 1275:( 1243:⟳ 1213:( 1188:( 1169:⟳ 1151:( 1134:⟳ 1110:( 1091:⟳ 1074:( 1054:⟳ 1037:( 1007:( 976:⟳ 940:( 851:( 820:) 816:( 785:( 763:( 748:( 725:( 700:( 676:( 652:( 622:⁄ 607:( 587:( 559:( 539:( 517:( 498:( 470:( 455:( 434:( 420:( 405:( 380:( 331:( 307:( 279:( 236:( 222:( 206:( 154:( 116:( 100:⟳ 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index