Talk:Erin Brockovich (film)

Fumento Criticism

The and the fact that this line have

"The movie was criticized by Michael Fumento of the National Review as a one-sided representation of the Hinkley litigation.[1]" appears in the first paragraph of the article implies that Fumento's criticism is highly relevant to a discussion of the film. I would argue that it's not. Had there the been wide spread criticism of the facts presented in the film at the time of it's release (or subsequently), then it certianly would be relevent to any discussion of the film, and would justify inclusion in the opening paragraph of the article. But as I recall, and a quick google search confirms, there was not widespread criticism of the factual basis of the film.

Addtionally, if you actually read the Fumento article, he doesn't criticize the film per se or it's portrayal events, rather his gripe is over whether chromium (VI) was actually responsible for the health effects. As such, his criticism is more relevant to the articles about the real life Brockovich and the actual case, and not relevant to a discussion about the movie.

I suggest either removing the Fumento criticism entirely, or moving it to lower in the page. Or if there was in fact more widespread, notable criticism of the film, then this should be developed more in the article. At anyrate, I certainly don't think that one critical commentary by a well known chemical industry apologist deserves to be highlighted in the introductory paragraph of the article. That it was added by user with a history of POV problems only strengthens my opinion that the sentence in question should go.Yilloslime 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added info on Michael Fumento, but I hadn't seen this talk page at the time. However, I think the size and position of the criticism is fine where it is. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my original objection still stands, even with the Fumento criticism moved from the lead to the body of the article. It's not notable, and it's not even really a criticism of the movie itself, but rather of the real life court case and attendant toxicology. As such, if it's relevant anywhere, it's relevant to the article about the actual case. Fumento, who is niether a movie critic nor a scientist, is the only person making these criticisms, and as such they are simply not notable enough to be mentioned here. Yilloslime (t) 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

References in article missing

None of the link references are working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.156.202 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out! Yilloslime (t) 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the 'See Also' section is basically irrelevant

With the exception of the Hinkley groundwater contamination link, it looks like self-publicising by Mark R. Winkle - the biographical details about Winkle are certainly irrelevant. I've fixed a couple of spelling/grammar mistakes but don't really feel it's got a place in this article. What does anyone else think?

Jmu2108 (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Headlines

• Erin Brockovich: The real story
• Production Notes
• Salon.com review
• At the Movies (5/14/99)
• At the Movies (10/01/99)
• At the Movies (3/17/2000)
• A Hit Movie Is Rated 'F' In Science
• Follow the Muse: Inspiration To Balance Lofty and Light
• Getting Angry Over Erin

-- to help beef up the article--J.D. (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Following referenced section removed for no sound reason

Scientists have argued that the movie encouraged exactly the wrong way to think about data, elevating individuals' medical histories to the level of proof and distorting the notion of risk. Scientists, seeing the evidence that so infuriated Erin Brockovich, would be much more cautious -- and skeptical. The first question to ask is whether residents of Hinkley really did have more sickness than people living elsewhere. And, if so, what illnesses are being discussed? Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold, who directs the carcinogenic potency project at the University of California at Berkeley, notes that Erin Brockovich is billed as fiction. So she has one wish for its audiences. 'They should ask, does the science support the conclusion?'.http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/11/health/reflections-a-hit-movie-is-rated-f-in-science.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph because it is not written in an encyclopedic style or manner, indeed, it is written very poorly. It is not clear how much of it is your own paraphrasing and which are actual quotes from the article. This will have to be completely rewritten, with much better clarity, before it can be restored. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

and I have every faith that you could do a better job at wording the section. So please help me write it! What do you have in mind? Boundarylayer (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Seen as I have recieved no response from you in regards to co-writing the section, should I take itBoundarylayer (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC) upon myself to write it entirely myself?

Car Crash Criticism

Lindley Maning, from Reno, Nevada according to his description in Skeptical Inquirer Vol 31 issue 1 Page 69 served as engineer witness for the defense in the case about the car crash in Reno in 1991. According to his description the crash was minor and Bronckvich's fault. 93.199.114.213 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erin Brockovich (film). 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/20091231174708/http://www.bfi.org.uk:80/sightandsound/review/354 to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/354

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erin Brockovich (film). 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/20080212005804/http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml to http://masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)