Talk:Erin Brockovich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Kansas Portal This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents 1 Questionable data? 2 Miss Wichita 3 Correct name of the case 4 National Institutes of Health Report 5 Cleanup

[edit] Questionable data?

" 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)

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)

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).

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)

[edit] Miss Wichita

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

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)

[edit] Correct name of the case

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)

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)

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

[edit] National Institutes of Health Report

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)

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)

[edit] Cleanup

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)