Talk:Sunrise at Campobello

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg
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 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)


 *  JGHowes talk  -  04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 edits
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 8 in 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)


 * I basically like your edit, and appreciate your coming up with a good solution. I think the article is NPOV and certainly looks better. I was hoping someone else would make the section format look better, which you have. I just wanted to start it. I think it is good to keep the article mostly about the movie, which I think is your point too. I will take the liberty in the discussion to address the medical aspects. I have no objection to mentioning contrary views and cited sources. I'm just not aware of any currently existing, beyond the contrary views (reactions) of some people who have a hard time accepting that a so-called "fact" (that FDR had polio) they've "known" to be true for many decades may not be true. Also, the reactions of some people who are "invested" in the idea that FDR had polio, usually because they are polio survivors themselves, and may resent FDR's diagnosis being questioned. The paper was published and fairly widely publicized in 2003. Others have had their opportunity to publish a rebuttal, and nobody has done so to date. The authors (including myself) had no ax to grind, no predetermined conclusions, and were not seeking publicity. We're just a group of doctors, neurologists, epidemiologists, and statisticians who painstakingly tracked down the evidence and analyzed the data, which nobody had done before, because nobody had questioned the diagnosis. FDR's doctors were probably not even aware of GBS, which had been first described in 1916, and the medical record does not mention any consideration of GBS, so it is understandable they may have jumped to the conclusion that FDR had polio. I have not seen the movie (SAC), but don't most movies tend to fictionalize much dialog and plot? For example, when Dr. Keen examined FDR, he actually diagnosed "a clot of blood from a sudden congestion - settled in the lower spinal cord" (Gallagher, FDR's Splendid Deception). Is that mentioned in the movie? Of course, we'll probably never know for sure if FDR had polio or GBS, and in a sense it should not matter too much, except to those interested in historical accuracy and the history of diseases. And because it's interesting how the questionable diagnosis went unquestioned for so many decades. The main point is that FDR "overcame his physical limitations through grit and determination", as the article states. Dagoldman (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

COI concerns
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)

External links modified
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)