Talk:Erin Brockovich

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed the paragraph below the section citing the CCR study and article. I have no idea why a line regarding being unable to find the CCR study on their website would belong in the article, nor would someone's (uncredited?) off-the-cuff calculation of what the cancer rate should be, be in there either.

If there's credible evidence the CCR study didn't exist or reached some other conclusion than the WashPo story, that should be cited and added to the article, not what was there. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Since the movies release, the 'factual' data cited in the movie have been called into question."

How? Show me who is saying this. How has it been "called into question"? WhisperToMe 20:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check out the two external links on the top article (the entry about the person, not the movie). It lists numerous "facts" that the author disproves. The rebuttal and the rebuttal to the rebuttal discusses it even further. If you like, I can cite the author for the phrase you removed. I'm not saying I agree with the author, but we do try to be NPOV here. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Read the Salon.com story link at the bottom of the article. It argues that the real story may not be as rosey and heroic as the movie portrays. It analyzes in great detail potential conflicts of interest by the arbitrator, questionable science regarding chromium's actual water-borne toxicity to humans in, and serious questions about how little money each plantiff (victim) actually received (compared to the $133 million their attorney's took off the top). I'm not saying the article is 100% accurate, but it's an interesting and informative read.

The prior criticisms of Brockovich in the article were based on some highly questionable work by Michael Fumento, a nonscientist with a partisan agenda. I have revised the article to provide more information and to avoid reliance on Fumento's work. John M Baker 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh stop. if you're going to sling mud such as 'nonscientist with a partisan agenda', then this label should be applied to ms. brokovich. i AM a scientist and have no interest in the case, but I have read mr fumento's well-footnoted reports, and they are, if not convincing, at least more than sufficient to show that there is significant controversy.

The characterization of Fumento's work as 'questionable' is entirely your opinion. The article as it stands after your edit does not clearly indicate that there is controversy over Brokovitch's claims - which there most surely is.

Fumento is not a scientist. His writings are highly partisan, and his selection and reading of evidence seem heavily influenced by political ideology.[1] He has been known to accept undisclosed funding from the business interests he supports.[2] Considering these facts, I think there is a heavy burden on anyone who chooses to cite Fumento.
The article currently states that scientists are divided on the merits of Brockovich's work. I would support a more detailed discussion, if one could be achieved based upon solid sources, without original research, and without abandoning NPOV. John M Baker 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the one having trouble with the concept of NPOV. The sections in the article that you have now twice removed did not 'cite' Fumento in order to establish a point of view, but simply pointed out that disagreements exist and provided links to source material if the reader is interested. The latest revision even went so far as to caution the reader against considering Fumento as an unbiased source. Simply inserting a throwaway 'scientists are divided' line into an entry that otherwise reads like a cheer squad chant for brockovich (with a link to supporting material that requires payment in order to access), does not provide a adequate level of objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.2.57.110 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just to say that Fumento is "controversial" fails to convey his lack of credibility in an encyclopedia. I would love to see a good discussion of this issue, but that takes more than citing to Fumento, even with a disclaimer. I've corrected the references to cite properly to Science, rather than just linking to password-protected pages. John M Baker 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is a freakin joke. If you deleted all of the current text and replaced it with "Erin Brockovich is freakin awesome" there would be no substantive difference. It is absolutely hilarious that Michael Fumento's research is left out because he is a "non-scientist" with a supposed partisan agenda. Give me a break. Does that mean that a NY Times report critical of Brockovich would be discounted? I can guarantee the author would be a "non-scientist". If we had to go through Wikipedia and get rid of every citation that fits your description, half the entries would contain no citations. One doesn't have to be scientist to write a well-researched article concerning a scientific topic. Ever heard of the concept of journalism? Moreover, given Brockovich's complete lack of formal scientific training and her obvious financial gain from her frivolous lawsuits, criticisms concerning Fumento's funding and his lack of a science background are as hypocritical and laughable as they are pathetic. Furthermore, quit claiming that you want to see a "good discussion" of the issue if you are going to contineu deleting sources that are critical of Brockovich. Unless of course you are only interested in a discussion that makes Brockovich look like a saint. Why don't you just admit you are going to delete anything that is critical of Brockovich? "Non-scientist"? Seriously? In an article about Brockovich? What a joke. At least you didn't bring up questionable funding in an article about a woman who made millions whilst her clients were given next to nothing. Oh, wait... you did. My bad. This entry is one of the worst, from a neutrality standpoint, I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

Was Erin really Miss Wichita? Or was that just artistic license? Tomer^talk 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite...Found it here...

Had Erin Brockovich really been Miss Wichita?

In responding to a question regarding the movie's accuracy, Erin answered by saying the following, "It's about 98 to 99 percent accurate. They took very, very few liberties. One of the liberties was, I was not Miss Wichita, I was actually Miss Pacific Coast, right here in California. Steven Soderbergh thought it would be cute since I was from Kansas to throw that in there." -CommonWealthClub.org

Tomer^talk 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a part of one sentence that said she entered a lot of lucrative beauty pagents. I looked at her bio on her website and she only entered one, the Pacific Coast pagent, and she won.Mylittlezach (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the correct name of the case Anderson v Pacific Gas & Electric, Anderson being the lead plaintiff? --ukexpat 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple lawsuits, so using the name of just one plaintiff is misleading. I have changed the section heading to "Pacific Gas Litigation." John M Baker 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good upgrade - thanks.--ukexpat 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe to include this report is a violation of Wikipedia's policies prohibiting Original Research and writing in a non-neutral Point of View.

• The report cited makes no mention of Brockovich or the Pacific Gas Litigation mentioned in her article. To include it without a direct mention of her is to take a (non-neutral) point of view that the report is germane in some way to either her or the litigation.
• It also appears that it is being included to advance the position that Brockovich's work is of merit. Without a specific mention of her in the cited source, including it is a violation of the section of WP:OR prohibiting synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Please note that the Science article cited explicitly mentions her and is therefore suitable for inclusion in article about her. Lawyer2b 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report is not original research, but is cited for the proposition that Cr (VI) may be carcinogenic when ingested in drinking water, a proposition for which it is directly relevant. It is irrelevant whether it specifically refers to the Hinkley situation. (In fact, it does refer to Hinkley, not that that matters.) This is in contrast to a discussion of Brockovich personally, where there does need to be specific reference to her. I have also added language to show the limits of the NTP report, as well as an additional reference on the controversy. John M Baker 23:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think this page needs some work. Most questionable part is listing her whole family. Is there some point to that? And I think the biography section should lay the foundation for the coverage in the legal arena. Now it just seems the focus is on the case, not the person. FrozenPurpleCube 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just received an invite from a facebook group calling for the organization of a draft campaign for Erin Brockovich to run for Governor of California in 2010. I was thinking perhaps we could add on a reference to the draft campaign to the article. Here is the link to the group:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49490441370 Liberal92 (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time to deal with this, so I'll put it here. Historically, most of the attention on this article has been on the value of Brockovich's work, with some naysayers asserting that Hinkley residents weren't really in much danger anyway from the Chromium(VI) in the groundwater (they usually call it Chromium-6). Over time, the discussion of this issue became the most heavily researched and focused portion of the article. Recently, two editors have chosen to delete it. Here is the material; for now, at least, I'll leave it to others to decide if some or all of it should go in the article. I'm not sure why there's a "Citation needed" tag, since there used to be a cite for that point; it apparently got deleted somewhere along the way. John M Baker (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium(VI) is known to be toxic and carcinogenic,^[1] and the 0.58 ppm in the groundwater in Hinkley exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level of 0.10 ppm currently set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.^[2] However, while it has long been known that chromium(VI) is carcinogenic when ingested via inhalation, drinking water laced with chromium(VI) is widely believed to be less toxic; some experts argue that the exposures at Hinkley were too low to cause health effects, while others respond that there were too many gaps in the data on chromium to dismiss the Hinkley residents' case.^[3] When Harvard's School of Public Health gave Brockovich an award in 2005, scientists were divided on the merits of her work.^{[citation needed]} National Institutes of Health researchers announced May 16, 2007 there is strong evidence that hexavalent chromium causes cancer in laboratory animals when it is consumed in drinking water. The two-year study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP)^[4] shows that animals given hexavalent chromium for three months developed malignant tumors on their pituitary gland.^[5] The report warns that extrapolation of these results to other species, including characterization of hazards and risks to humans, requires analyses beyond the intent of the report. Nevertheless, health care professionals agree that the current data on chromium(VI) are sufficient to justify strict legal limits on the hexavalent chromium concentration in water, and that neglect of these limits imposes a major health threat on the affected population.

I'll speak to why I removed it. This article isn't the place to make the case for or against whether hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic, or detail the results of government studies regarding it. This article also isn't the place to debate whether Brockovich's work had value in regard to the dangers of hexavelent chromium. That is best reserved for a separate article addressing that in specific. Brockovich isn't a scientist so any discussion in this article regarding her involvement needs to address what her work was, and that wasn't determining the dangers of a substance. Her work was directed toward assisting in developing a lawsuit and assisting in obtaining a judgment from it. If the focus of the article was becoming a debate over the merits or weaknesses in the lawsuit, that has nothing to do with Brockovich's involvement since that involvement wasn't developing the scientific evidence covered in it. If the article had become a source of debate over the merits of the scientific evidence, that also belonged in a different article than this one. It is beyond the scope of this article to establish the validity of the science upon which the lawsuit itself was determined. It certainly wasn't what Brockovich's place in the case was. If debate over it is relevant to the case, then by all means write an article about the validity of the case itself and not try to justify or explain the whys that aren't relevant here. Also, there is no need to paste the section into the talk page. It is always available in the article history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I could POSSIBLY be the first one to notice this, but under her photo, it says that her birthdate is November 19, 1960 , whereas in the article itself, at the very beginning, it actually says "Erin Brockovich, born June 22, 1960". This should be corrected right away, as this particular kind of error defeats the exact purpose of an encyclopedia. It's one thing to have a conflict related to POV guidelines, but this is a black and white issue. She can only have one birthday. Sorry, I'm just a little incredulous. Of course, since I am not the boss of the world, I will not just do something arbitrary...so, please... comment away... 70.49.105.165 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC) (70.49.105.165 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The current version of the article also has two different birthdates, June 22, 1960 and June 22, 1961. I don't have a source as to which is correct. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Average chromium(VI) levels in Hinkley were recorded as 1.19 ppb with a peak of 3.09 ppb. The PG&E Topock Compressor Station averaged 7.8 ppb and peaks at 31.8 ppb based on the PG&E Background Study. Compare to the California proposed health goal of 0.06 ppb."

One thing people should consider with this statement is what the groundwater levels of the plume were at the site. Although the background levels may be above the California health goal (meaning PG&E should only have to clean up to the background level instead of the California health goal) more than likely the plume levels were much higher. We see this on many contaminated sites, that metals have high background levels, higher than safe drinking water levels (especially in the western United States). Just because water comes from the ground does not mean it's safe to drink even though there has never been site contamination. Looking at a plume map from February 2011 (EPA Website) they still have many wells that have values much higher than 50 micrograms per liter (ug/L), more than 12 times the highest background level and some values greater than 2,000 ug/L. So, although a doctor has said the cancer rates are lower than expected and the background levels are higher than what is recommended, it does not mean that the plume is "safe", just something to keep in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masvd7 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got this whole section entitled "Pacific Gas and Electric litigation", in an article entitled Erin Brockovich, but the section does not so much as hint at the nature of Brockovich's involvement; rather, the section talks about the technical details of the case and includes unnecessary argumentation about cancer rates in Hinkley and comparative rates of contamination in other places. The section also draws upon primary sources and makes conclusions about the data therein, which I believe is original research.

Shouldn't the article and the section dwell primarily on Brockovich and her involvement? Shouldn't the section at least hint on why there's any reason for it to be included in the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Masry's law firm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.25.50 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the section on Brockovich's June 2013 arrest for intoxication seems petty and off-topic for this article. It's tantamount to someone getting cited for having a burned-out tail light on their car. She isn't known for being a lush, and if she hadn't already been famous for something else, it probably wouldn't even have made the news. Although I don't know much about Brockovich other than what I've read here at Wikipedia and a few news articles, it seems to me that adding the section smacks of vindictiveness and pushes the limits on Wikipedia's BLP policies. I suggest the section should be deleted. — Quicksilver^{T @} 03:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous editor that the note about an arrest pushes the limits on Wikipedia's BLP policies. It is a piece of information not important enough to warrant inclusion in the article. I've deleted the note. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]