Talk:Erin Brockovich

message: 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)
thread_title: CCR Study

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Good upgrade - thanks.--ukexpat 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name of the case 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National Institutes of Health report 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add on a Brockovich for Governor of CA draft campaign? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questionably deleted text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Two different birthdays in article?! Which is it?! Should be corrected right away! 

message: "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)
thread_title: Pacific Gas and Electric litigation comment on background levels

message: 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)
replies: text: Despite the passage of 17 months, Jpgordon's question has not received any answer.  Does anyone know of sources about what happened? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd omission and argumentation 

message: Perhaps this,belongs in the film more than the BLP, but the subject did acknolwedged dressing in such a fashion that was quite out of place for her profession.  Enough so that she gets asked the question all the time.  I'd like to find a tasteful,and sourced way to to add this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Provocative attire

message: The article reads "Brockovich's attorneys received 133.6 million dollars of that settlement, and Brockovich herself received a bonus of two million dollars. However, Brockovich's attorneys held onto the money more than six months, then, after several threats for lawsuits, they finally paid out.[8]"  Somebody please edit if necessary to clarify if 1) "Brockovich's attorneys" are lawyers she hired to represent her, or 2) this is the law firm she clerked for.Casey (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing nothing, I rewrote this entire section of the article. Casey (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brockovich's attorneys"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Erin Brockovich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111001025938/http://www.cjac.org/newsandresearch/balance/bal3-07.pdf to http://www.cjac.org/newsandresearch/balance/bal3-07.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090428171343/http://www.kansascity.com:80/105/story/1157579.html to http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1157579.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Erin Brockovich. 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/20110715180157/http://rexwriter.com/Rex_Maurice_Oppenheimer/Nonfiction_files/GIRARDI%20%20and%20KEESE%20(Law%20Firm)%20.pdf to http://rexwriter.com/Rex_Maurice_Oppenheimer/Nonfiction_files/GIRARDI%20%20and%20KEESE%20(Law%20Firm)%20.pdf
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) 19:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Erin Brockovich. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://rexwriter.com/Rex_Maurice_Oppenheimer/Nonfiction_files/GIRARDI%20%20and%20KEESE%20%28Law%20Firm%29%20.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130628022636/http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/201715/37/What-Really-Happened-To-The-Girls-In-Le-Roy to http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/201715/37/What-Really-Happened-To-The-Girls-In-Le-Roy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122220421/http://www.brockovich.com/awards.html to http://www.brockovich.com/awards.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103101126/http://www.brockovichivillage.com/ to http://brockovichivillage.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405183459/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/1564%3A1812/1/Erin_Brockovich.htm to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/1564%3A1812/1/Erin_Brockovich.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221002329/http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/04/14/sharp/index.html?pn=5 to http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/04/14/sharp/index.html?pn=5
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) 21:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Erin Brockovich. 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/20100513111556/http://www.brockovichblog.com/ to http://www.brockovichblog.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301035448/http://www.environmentaljustice.com.au/ to http://www.environmentaljustice.com.au/
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) 17:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As I have previously disclosed, I have a prior existing and long standing professional conflict with Erin but I do have volumes or secondary sources for controversies she’s been involved in.  I am going to slowly start adding this to this section.  
I do have a concern that  appear to be haunting this article and preventing things from being included.  
More later 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks against the article subject and Wikipedia editors will lead to your being blocked from editing. If you have a declared conflict of interest, it is in your best interest not to edit the article at all, but rather to discuss proposed changes (with reliable sources) here on the talk page. I have redacted your BLP-violating verbiage here and warn you strongly that you'll be blocked if you continue exercising a personal vendetta here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve already addressed your concern on the admin noticeboard prior to your predicted response and asked for intervention, as posting secondary sources to Erin’s now dozens and dozens of scandals isn’t a personal attack and neither referencing unnamed editors.  As I stated on the notice board, I believe that people watching this page are not declaring bias and are editing in her favor.  Once again, all addressed prior to my post, also on which I was instructed to post my concerns here.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Famous2UseMyName (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't posted any secondary sources anywhere; you've merely made unsupported accusations and defamatory claims about the article subject and unnamed Wikipedians. Either substantiate your claims with diffs which show evidence of bias among editors, and reliable sources which support your vague and undefined claims about Brockovich, or drop it and move on. Or you can just get blocked. Up to you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: As it notes here, we generally avoid having controversy sections. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to posting this I started a thread for admins to monitor my additions to the page because adding a controversy section isn’t a personal attack and I predicted your behavior prior to my post and was actually instructed by admins to place this here.  See the noticeboard.   2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No admin instructed you to claim, without a shred of evidence, that Wikipedia users are part of a "cult of personality." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a controversy section 

message: Is it really appropriate to cite an MJ article that cites a CPI critique to counter the claims of an epidemiologist working for the California Cancer Registry? The CPI is a noted progressive-leaning organization and so there is a real possibility of ideological biases affecting the reliability of this source on this particular subject.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Jones/CPI