text:
Electronic data interchange

Electronic data interchange (EDI) is the concept of businesses electronically communicating information that was traditionally communicated on paper, such as purchase orders, advance ship notices, and invoices. Technical standards for EDI exist to facilitate parties transacting such instruments without having to make special arrangements.

EDI has existed at least since the early 70s, and there are many EDI standards (including X12, EDIFACT, ODETTE, etc.), some of which address the needs of specific industries or regions. It also refers specifically to a family of standards. In 1996, the National Institute of Standards and Technology defined electronic data interchange as "the computer-to-computer interchange of a standardized format for data exchange. EDI implies a sequence of messages between two parties, either of whom may serve as originator or recipient. The formatted data representing the documents may be transmitted from originator to recipient via telecommunications or physically transported on electronic storage media." It distinguished mere electronic communication or data exchange, specifying that "in EDI, the usual processing of received messages is by computer only. Human intervention in the processing of a received message is typically intended only for error conditions, for quality review, and for special situations. For example, the transmission of binary or textual data is not EDI as defined here unless the data are treated as one or more data elements of an EDI message and are not normally intended for human interpretation as part of online data processing." In short, EDI can be defined as the transfer of structured data, by agreed message standards, from one computer system to another without human intervention.

History
Like many other early information technologies, EDI was inspired by developments in military logistics. The complexity of the 1948 Berlin airlift required the development of concepts and methods to exchange, sometimes over a 300 baud teletype modem, vast quantities of data and information about transported goods. These initial concepts later shaped the first TDCC (Transportation Data Coordinating Committee) standards in the US. Among the first integrated systems using EDI were Freight Control Systems. One such real-time system was the London Airport Cargo EDP Scheme (LACES) at Heathrow Airport, London, UK, in 1971. Implementing the direct trader input (DTI) method, it allowed forwarding agents to enter information directly into the customs processing system, reducing the time for clearance. The increase of maritime traffic and problems at customs similar to those experienced at Heathrow Airport led to the implementation of DTI systems in individual ports or groups of ports in the 1980s.

Standards
EDI provides a technical basis for automated commercial "conversations" between two entities, either internal or external. The term EDI encompasses the entire electronic data interchange process, including the transmission, message flow, document format, and software used to interpret the documents. However, EDI standards describe the rigorous format of electronic documents, and the EDI standards were designed, initially in the automotive industry, to be independent of communication and software technologies.

EDI documents generally contain the same information that would normally be found in a paper document used for the same organizational function. For example, an EDI 940 ship-from-warehouse order is used by a manufacturer to tell a warehouse to ship a product to a retailer. It typically has a 'ship-to' address, a 'bill-to' address, and a list of product numbers (usually a UPC) and quantities. Another example is the set of messages between sellers and buyers, such as request for quotation (RFQ), bid in response to RFQ, purchase order, purchase order acknowledgement, shipping notice, receiving advice, invoice, and payment advice. However, EDI is not confined to just business data related to trade but encompasses all fields such as medicine (e.g., patient records and laboratory results), transport (e.g., container and modal information), engineering and construction, etc. In some cases, EDI will be used to create a new business information flow (that was not a paper flow before). This is the case in the Advanced Shipment Notification (ASN) which was designed to inform the receiver of a shipment, the goods to be received and how the goods are packaged. This is further complemented with the shipment's use of the shipping labels containing a GS1-128 barcode referencing the shipment's tracking number.

Some major sets of EDI standards: Many of these standards first appeared in the early to mid-1980s. The standards prescribe the formats, character sets, and data elements used in the exchange of business documents and forms. The complete X12 Document List includes all major business documents, including purchase orders and invoices.
 * The UN-recommended UN/EDIFACT is the only international standard and is predominant outside of North America.
 * The US standard ANSI ASC X12 (X12) is predominant in North America.
 * GS1 EDI set of standards developed the GS1, predominant in global supply chain.
 * The TRADACOMS standard developed by the ANA (Article Number Association, now known as GS1 UK) is predominant in the UK retail industry.
 * The ODETTE standard used within the European automotive industry.
 * The VDA standard used within the European automotive industry, mainly in Germany.
 * HL7, a semantic interoperability standard used for healthcare data.
 * HIPAA, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability ACT (HIPAA), requires millions of healthcare entities who electronically transmit data to use EDI in a standard HIPAA format.
 * IATA Cargo-IMP, IATA Cargo-IMP stands for International Air Transport Association Cargo Interchange Message Procedures. It is an EDI standard based on EDIFACT created to automate and standardize data exchange between airlines and other parties.
 * NCPDP Script, SCRIPT is a standard developed and maintained by the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP). The standard defines documents for electronic transmission of medical prescriptions in the United States.
 * The NCPDP Telecommunications standard includes transactions for eligibility verification, claim and service billing, predetermination of benefits, prior authorization, and information reporting, and is used primarily in the United States.
 * Edig@s (EDIGAS) is a standard dealing with commerce, transport (via pipeline or container) and storage of gas.

The EDI standard prescribes mandatory and optional information for a particular document and gives the rules for the structure of the document. The standards are like building codes. Just as two kitchens can be built "to code" but look completely different, two EDI documents can follow the same standard and contain different sets of information. For example, a food company may indicate a product's expiration date while a clothing manufacturer would choose to send colour and size information.

Transmission protocols
EDI can be transmitted using any methodology agreed to by the sender and recipient, but as more trading partners began using the Internet for transmission, standardized protocols have emerged.

This includes various technologies such as:

 * mModem (asynchronous and synchronous)
 * FTP, SFTP and FTPS
 * Email
 * HTTP/HTTPS
 * AS1
 * AS2
 * AS4
 * OFTP (and OFTP2)
 * Mobile EDI

When some people compared the synchronous protocol 2400 bit/s modems, CLEO devices, and value-added networks used to transmit EDI documents to transmitting via the Internet, they equated the non-Internet technologies with EDI and predicted erroneously that EDI itself would be replaced along with the non-Internet technologies. In most cases, these non-internet transmission methods are simply being replaced by Internet protocols, such as FTP, HTTP, telnet, and e-mail, but the EDI documents themselves still remain.

In 2002, the IETF published RFC 3335, offering a standardized, secure method of transferring EDI data via e-mail. On July 12, 2005, an IETF working group ratified RFC4130 for MIME-based HTTP EDIINT (a.k.a. AS2) transfers, and the IETF has prepared a similar RFC for FTP transfers (a.k.a. AS3). EDI via web services (a.k.a. AS4) has also been standardized by the OASIS standards body. While some EDI transmission has moved to these newer protocols, the providers of value-added networks remain active.

Internet
As more organizations connected to the Internet, eventually most or all EDI was pushed onto it. Initially, this was through ad hoc conventions, such as unencrypted FTP of ASCII text files to a certain folder on a certain host, permitted only from certain IP addresses. However, the IETF has published several informational documents (the "Applicability Statements"; see below under Protocols) describing ways to use standard internet protocols for EDI.

As of 2002, Walmart has pushed AS2 for EDI. Because of its significant presence in the global supply chain, AS2 has become a commonly adopted approach for EDI.

Specifications
Organizations that send or receive documents from each other are referred to as "trading partners" in EDI terminology. The trading partners agree on the specific information to be transmitted and how it should be used. This is done in human-readable specifications (also called Message Implementation Guidelines). While the standards are analogous to building codes, the specifications are analogous to blueprints. (The specification may also be called a "mapping," but the term mapping is typically reserved for specific machine-readable instructions given to the translation software. ) Larger trading "hubs" have existing Message Implementation Guidelines which mirror their business processes for processing EDI and they are usually unwilling to modify their EDI business practices to meet the needs of their trading partners. Often in a large company, these EDI guidelines will be written to be generic enough to be used by different branches or divisions and therefore will contain information not needed for a particular business document exchange. For other large companies, they may create separate EDI guidelines for each branch/division.

Transmission : Direct EDI and VANs
Trading partners are free to use any method for the transmission of documents (as described above in the Transmission protocols section). Further, they can either interact directly or through an intermediary.

Direct EDI: peer-to-peer
Trading partners can connect directly to each other. For example, an automotive manufacturer might maintain a modem-pool that all of its hundreds of suppliers are required to dial into to perform EDI. However, if a supplier does business with several manufacturers, it may need to acquire a different modem (or VPN device, etc.) and different software for each one.

As EDI and web technology have evolved, new EDI software technologies have emerged to facilitate direct (also known as point-to-point) EDI between trading partners. Modern EDI software can facilitate exchanges using any number of different file transmission protocols and EDI document standards, reducing costs and barriers to entry.

Value-added networks
To address the limitations in peer-to-peer adoption of EDI, VANs (value-added networks) were established decades ago. A VAN acts as a regional post office. It receives transactions, examines the 'from' and the 'to' information, and routes the transaction to the final recipient. VANs may provide a number of additional services, e.g. retransmitting documents, providing third party audit information, acting as a gateway for different transmission methods, and handling telecommunications support. Because of these and other services VANs provide, businesses frequently use a VAN even when both trading partners are using Internet-based protocols. Healthcare clearinghouses perform many of the same functions as a VAN, but have additional legal restrictions.

VANs may be operated by various entities:
 * telecommunication companies;
 * industry group consortia;
 * a large company interacting with its suppliers/vendors;
 * managed services providers.

Costs, trade-offs and implementation
It is important to note that there are key trade-offs between VANs and Direct EDI, and in many instances, organizations exchanging EDI documents can in fact use both in concert, for different aspects of their EDI implementations. For example, in the U.S., the majority of EDI document exchanges use AS2, so a direct EDI setup for AS2 may make sense for a U.S.-based organization. But adding OFTP2 capabilities to communicate with a European partner may be difficult, so a VAN might make sense to handle those specific transactions, while direct EDI is used for the AS2 transactions.

In many ways, a VAN acts as a service provider, simplifying much of the setup for organizations looking to initiate EDI. Due to the fact that many organizations first starting out with EDI often do so to meet a customer or partner requirement and therefore lack in-house EDI expertise, a VAN can be a valuable asset.

However, VANs may come with high costs. VANs typically charge a per-document or even per-line-item transaction fee to process EDI transactions as a service on behalf of their customers. This is the predominant reason why many organizations also implement an EDI software solution or eventually migrate to one for some or all of their EDI.

On the other hand, implementing EDI software can be a challenging process, depending on the complexity of the use case, technologies involved and availability of EDI expertise. In addition, there are ongoing maintenance requirements and updates to consider. For example, EDI mapping is one of the most challenging EDI management tasks. Companies must develop and maintain EDI maps for each of their trading partners (and sometimes multiple EDI maps for each trading partner based on their order fulfilment requirements).

Interpreting data
EDI translation software provides the interface between internal systems and the EDI format sent/received. For an "inbound" document, the EDI solution will receive the file (either via a value-added network or directly using protocols such as FTP or AS2), take the received EDI file (commonly referred to as an "envelope"), and validate that the trading partner who is sending the file is a valid trading partner, that the structure of the file meets the EDI standards, and that the individual fields of information conform to the agreed-upon standards. Typically, the translator will either create a file of either fixed length, variable length or XML tagged format or "print" the received EDI document (for non-integrated EDI environments). The next step is to convert/transform the file that the translator creates into a format that can be imported into a company's back-end business systems, applications or ERP. This can be accomplished by using a custom program, an integrated proprietary "mapper" or an integrated standards-based graphical "mapper," using a standard data transformation language such as XSLT. The final step is to import the transformed file (or database) into the company's back-end system.

For an "outbound" document, the process for integrated EDI is to export a file (or read a database) from a company's information systems and transform the file to the appropriate format for the translator. The translation software will then "validate" the EDI file sent to ensure that it meets the standard agreed upon by the trading partners, convert the file into "EDI" format (adding the appropriate identifiers and control structures) and send the file to the trading partner (using the appropriate communications protocol).

Another critical component of any EDI translation software is a complete "audit" of all the steps to move business documents between trading partners. The audit ensures that any transaction (which in reality is a business document) can be tracked to ensure that they are not lost. In the case of a retailer sending a Purchase Order to a supplier, if the Purchase Order is "lost" anywhere in the business process, the effect is devastating to both businesses. To the supplier, they do not fulfil the order as they have not received it thereby losing business and damaging the business relationship with their retail client. For the retailer, they have a stock outage and the effect is lost sales, reduced customer service and ultimately lower profits.

In EDI terminology, "inbound" and "outbound" refer to the direction of transmission of an EDI document in relation to a particular system, not the direction of merchandise, money or other things represented by the document. For example, an EDI document that tells a warehouse to perform an outbound shipment is an inbound document in relation to the warehouse computer system. It is an outbound document in relation to the manufacturer or dealer that transmitted the document.

Advantages over paper systems
EDI and other similar technologies save the company money by providing an alternative to or replacing, information flows that require a great deal of human interaction and paper documents. Even when paper documents are maintained in parallel with EDI exchange, e.g. printed shipping manifests, electronic exchange and the use of data from that exchange reduces the handling costs of sorting, distributing, organizing, and searching paper documents. EDI and similar technologies allow a company to take advantage of the benefits of storing and manipulating data electronically without the cost of manual entry. Another advantage of EDI is the opportunity to reduce or eliminate manual data entry errors, such as shipping and billing errors, because EDI eliminates the need to re-key documents on the destination side. One very important advantage of EDI over paper documents is the speed at which the trading partner receives and incorporates the information into their system greatly reducing cycle times. For this reason, EDI can be an important component of just-in-time production systems.

According to the 2008 Aberdeen report "A Comparison of Supplier Enablement around the World", only 34% of purchase orders are transmitted electronically in North America. In EMEA, 36% of orders are transmitted electronically and in APAC, 41% of orders are transmitted electronically. They also report that the average paper requisition to order costs a company US$37.45 in North America, US$42.90 in EMEA and US$23.90 in APAC. With an EDI requisition to order, costs are reduced to US$23.83 in North America, US$34.05 in EMEA and US$14.78 in APAC.

Barriers to implementation
There are a few barriers to adopting electronic data interchange. One of the most significant barriers is the accompanying business process change. Existing business processes built around paper handling may not be suited for EDI and would require changes to accommodate automated processing of business documents. For example, a business may receive the bulk of their goods by 1 or 2-day shipping and all of their invoices by mail. The existing process may, therefore, assume that goods are typically received before the invoice. With EDI, the invoice will typically be sent when the goods ship and will, therefore, require a process that handles large numbers of invoices whose corresponding goods have not yet been received.

Another significant barrier is the cost in time and money in the initial setup. The preliminary expenses and time that arise from the implementation, customization and training can be costly. It is important to select the correct level of integration to match the business requirement. For a business with relatively few transactions with EDI-based partners, it may make sense for businesses to implement inexpensive "rip and read" solutions, where the EDI format is printed out in human-readable form, and people — rather than computers — respond to the transaction. Another alternative is outsourced EDI solutions provided by EDI "Service Bureaus". For other businesses, the implementation of an integrated EDI solution may be necessary as increases in trading volumes brought on by EDI force them to re-implement their order processing business processes.

The key hindrance to a successful implementation of EDI is the perception many businesses have of the nature of EDI. Many view EDI from the technical perspective that EDI is a data format; it would be more accurate to take the business view that EDI is a system for exchanging business documents with external entities, and integrating the data from those documents into the company's internal systems. Successful implementations of EDI take into account the effect externally generated information will have on their internal systems and validate the business information received. For example, allowing a supplier to update a retailer's accounts payable system without appropriate checks and balances would put the company at significant risk. Businesses new to the implementation of EDI must understand the underlying business process and apply proper judgment.

Acknowledgement
There are several mechanisms used in EDI for acknowledgement, i.e. notifying the sender that an incoming transaction was received and handled by the recipient:

 * Communication Status – Indicate the transmission completed
 * MDN (Message Disposition Notification) – In AS2 only, indicate the message is readable
 * Functional Acknowledgement – typically "997" in ANSI, or "CONTRL" in EDIFACT, which indicate the message content is verified against its template, and tell if the transaction is posted to the receiver's electronic system.
 * Business Level Acknowledgement – the final indicator shows if the transaction is accepted by the receiver or not.

title: Electronic data interchange


text:
Extravehicular activity

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is any activity done by an astronaut in outer space outside a spacecraft. In the absence of a breathable Earthlike atmosphere, the astronaut is completely reliant on a space suit for environmental support. EVA includes spacewalks and lunar or planetary surface exploration (commonly known from 1969 to 1972 as moonwalks). In a stand-up EVA (SEVA), an astronaut stands through an open hatch but does not fully leave the spacecraft. EVAs have been conducted by the Soviet Union/Russia, the United States, Canada, the European Space Agency and China.

On March 18, 1965, Alexei Leonov became the first human to perform a spacewalk, exiting the Voskhod 2 capsule for 12 minutes and 9 seconds. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first human to perform a moonwalk, outside his lunar lander on Apollo 11 for 2 hours and 31 minutes. In 1984, Svetlana Savitskaya became the first woman to perform a spacewalk, conducting EVA outside the Salyut 7 space station for 3 hours and 35 minutes. On the last three Moon missions, astronauts also performed deep-space EVAs on the return to Earth, to retrieve film canisters from the outside of the spacecraft. American Astronauts Pete Conrad, Joseph Kerwin, and Paul Weitz also used EVA in 1973 to repair launch damage to Skylab, the United States' first space station.

EVAs may be either tethered (the astronaut is connected to the spacecraft; oxygen and electrical power can be supplied through an umbilical cable; no propulsion is needed to return to the spacecraft), or untethered. Untethered spacewalks were only performed on three missions in 1984 using the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU), and on a flight test in 1994 of the Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue (SAFER), a safety device worn on tethered U.S. EVAs.

Development history
NASA planners invented the term extravehicular activity (abbreviated with the acronym EVA) in the early 1960s for the Apollo program to land humans on the Moon, because the astronauts would leave the spacecraft to collect lunar material samples and deploy scientific experiments. To support this, and other Apollo objectives, the Gemini program was spun off to develop the capability for astronauts to work outside a two-person Earth orbiting spacecraft. However, the Soviet Union was fiercely competitive in holding the early lead it had gained in crewed spaceflight, so the Soviet Communist Party, led by Nikita Khrushchev, ordered the conversion of its single-pilot Vostok capsule into a two- or three-person craft named Voskhod, in order to compete with Gemini and Apollo. The Soviets were able to launch two Voskhod capsules before U.S. was able to launch its first crewed Gemini.

The Voskhod's avionics required cooling by cabin air to prevent any kind of overheating, therefore an airlock was required for the spacewalking cosmonaut to exit and re-enter the cabin while it remained pressurized. Unusually, and by contrast, the Gemini avionics did not require air cooling, allowing the spacewalking astronaut to exit and re-enter the depressurized cabin through an open hatch. Because of this, the American and Soviet space programs developed different definitions for the duration of an EVA. The Soviet (now Russian) definition begins when the outer airlock hatch is open and the cosmonaut is in vacuum. An American EVA began when the astronaut had at least their head outside the spacecraft. The USA has changed its EVA definition since.

First instance

The first EVA was performed on March 18, 1965, by Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who spent 12 minutes and 9 seconds outside the Voskhod 2 spacecraft. Carrying a white metal backpack containing 45 minutes' worth of breathing and pressurization oxygen, Leonov had no means to control his motion other than pulling on his 15.35 m tether. After the flight, he claimed this was easy, but his space suit ballooned from its internal pressure against the vacuum of space, stiffening so much that he could not activate the shutter on his chest-mounted camera.

At the end of his space walk, the suit stiffening caused a more serious problem: Leonov had to re-enter the capsule through the inflatable cloth airlock, 1.2 m in diameter and 2.5 m long. He improperly entered the airlock head-first and got stuck sideways. He could not get back in without reducing the pressure in his suit, risking "the bends". This added another 12 minutes to his time in vacuum, and he was overheated by 1.8 C-change from the exertion. It would be almost four years before the Soviets tried another EVA. They misrepresented to the press how difficult Leonov found it to work in weightlessness and concealed the problems encountered until after the end of the Cold War.

Project Gemini

The first American spacewalk was performed on June 3, 1965, by Ed White from the second crewed Gemini flight, Gemini IV, for 21 minutes. White was tethered to the spacecraft, and his oxygen was supplied through a 25 ft umbilical, which also carried communications and biomedical instrumentation. He was the first to control his motion in space with a Hand-Held Maneuvering Unit, which worked well but only carried enough propellant for 20 seconds. White found his tether useful for limiting his distance from the spacecraft but difficult to use for moving around, contrary to Leonov's claim. However, a defect in the capsule's hatch latching mechanism caused difficulties opening and closing the hatch, which delayed the start of the EVA and put White and his crewmate at risk of not getting back to Earth alive.

No EVAs were planned on the next three Gemini flights. The next EVA was planned to be made by David Scott on Gemini VIII, but that mission had to be aborted due to a critical spacecraft malfunction before the EVA could be conducted. Astronauts on the next three Gemini flights (Eugene Cernan, Michael Collins, and Richard Gordon), performed several EVAs, but none was able to successfully work for long periods outside the spacecraft without tiring and overheating. Cernan attempted but failed to test an Air Force Astronaut Maneuvering Unit which included a self-contained oxygen system.

On November 13, 1966, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin became the first to successfully work in space without tiring during Gemini XII, the last Gemini mission. Aldrin worked outside the spacecraft for 2 hours and 6 minutes, in addition to two stand-up EVAs in the spacecraft hatch for an additional 3 hours and 24 minutes. Aldrin's interest in scuba diving inspired the use of underwater EVA training to simulate weightlessness, which has been used ever since to allow astronauts to practice techniques of avoiding wasted muscle energy.

First crew transfer
On January 16, 1969, Soviet cosmonauts Aleksei Yeliseyev and Yevgeny Khrunov transferred from Soyuz 5 to Soyuz 4, which were docked together. This was the second Soviet EVA, and it would be almost another nine years before the Soviets performed their third.

Apollo missions

American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin performed the first EVA on the lunar surface on July 21, 1969 (UTC), after landing their Apollo 11 Lunar Module spacecraft. This first Moon walk, using self-contained portable life support systems, lasted 2 hours and 36 minutes. A total of fifteen Moon walks were performed among six Apollo crews, including Charles "Pete" Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt. Cernan was the last Apollo astronaut to step off the surface of the Moon.

Apollo 15 command module pilot Al Worden made an EVA on August 5, 1971, on the return trip from the Moon, to retrieve a film and data recording canister from the service module. He was assisted by Lunar Module Pilot James Irwin standing up in the Command Module hatch. This procedure was repeated by Ken Mattingly and Charles Duke on Apollo 16, and by Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on Apollo 17.

Post-Apollo
The first EVA repairs of a spacecraft were made by Charles "Pete" Conrad, Joseph Kerwin, and Paul J. Weitz on May 26, June 7, and June 19, 1973, on the Skylab 2 mission. They rescued the functionality of the launch-damaged Skylab space station by freeing a stuck solar panel, deploying a solar heating shield, and freeing a stuck circuit breaker relay. The Skylab 2 crew made three EVAs, and a total of ten EVAs were made by the three Skylab crews. They found that activities in weightlessness required about 2$1/2$ times longer than on Earth because many astronauts suffered spacesickness early in their flights.

After Skylab, no more EVAs were made by the United States until the advent of the Space Shuttle program in the early 1980s. In this period, the Soviets resumed EVAs, making four from the Salyut 6 and Salyut 7 space stations between December 20, 1977, and July 30, 1982.

When the United States resumed EVAs on April 7, 1983, astronauts started using an Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for self-contained life support independent of the spacecraft. STS-6 was the first Space Shuttle mission during which a spacewalk was conducted. Also, for the first time, American astronauts used an airlock to enter and exit the spacecraft like the Soviets. Accordingly, the American definition of EVA start time was redefined to when the astronaut switches the EMU to battery power.

Numerous EVAs were conducted during the assembly of the ISS, often using the Quest Joint Airlock, designed to support both US EMUs, and Russian Orlan space suits.

By China
China became the third country to independently carry out an EVA on September 27, 2008, during the Shenzhou 7 mission. Chinese taikonaut Zhai Zhigang completed a 22-minute spacewalk wearing the Chinese-developed Feitian space suit, with taikonaut Liu Boming wearing the Russian-derived Orlan space suit assisting him in the process. Zhai completely exited the craft, while Liu stood by at the airlock, straddling the portal.

Since 2021, China has carried out several more extravehicular activities lasting several hours for the construction of the Tiangong space station.

Capability milestones

 * The first untethered spacewalk was made by American Bruce McCandless II on February 7, 1984, during the Space Shuttle Challenger mission STS-41-B, using the Manned Maneuvering Unit. He was subsequently joined by Robert L. Stewart during the 5-hour, 55-minute spacewalk. A self-contained spacewalk was first attempted by Eugene Cernan in 1966 on Gemini 9A, but Cernan could not reach the maneuvering unit without tiring.
 * The first metalwork in open space, consisting of welding, brazing and metal spraying, was conducted by Soviet cosmonauts Svetlana Savitskaya and Vladimir Dzhanibekov on July 25, 1984. A specially designed multipurpose tool was used to perform these activities during a 3-hour, 30-minute EVA outside the Salyut 7 space station.
 * The first three-person EVA was performed on May 13, 1992, as the third EVA of STS-49, the maiden flight of Endeavour. Pierre Thuot, Richard Hieb, and Thomas Akers conducted the EVA to hand-capture and repair a non-functional Intelsat VI-F3 satellite. it was the only three-person EVA.
 * The first EVA to perform an in-flight repair of the Space Shuttle was by American Steve Robinson on August 3, 2005, during "Return to Flight" mission STS-114. Robinson was sent to remove two protruding gap fillers from Discovery's heat shield, after engineers determined there was a small chance they could affect the shuttle upon re-entry. Robinson successfully removed the loose material while Discovery was docked to the International Space Station.
 * The longest EVA performed as of January 2022, was 8 hours and 56 minutes, performed by Susan Helms and James S. Voss on March 11, 2001.

Personal cumulative duration records

 * Russian Anatoly Solovyev holds both the record for most EVAs and for the greatest cumulative duration spent in EVA (16 EVAs; 82 hr and 22 min over 4 Mir missions between July 1990 and January 1998).
 * Michael Lopez-Alegria holds the American record (10 EVAs; 67 hr and 40 min over 2 Shuttle and 1 ISS missions between October 2000 and February 2007).
 * Thomas Pesquet holds the European (and non-US/Russian) record (6 EVAs; 39 hr and 54 min over 2 ISS missions between January 2017 and August 2021).
 * Peggy Whitson holds the record for most EVAs and most cumulative duration spent for a woman (10 EVAs, 60 hr and 21 min over 3 ISS missions between August 2002 and May 2017).

National, ethnic and gender firsts

 * The first woman to perform an EVA was Soviet Svetlana Savitskaya on July 25, 1984, while aboard the Salyut 7 space station. Her EVA lasted 3 hours and 35 minutes.
 * The first American woman to perform an EVA was on October 11, 1984, by Kathryn D. Sullivan during STS-41-G.
 * The first two women to perform an EVA together and the first all-female EVA team were Christina Koch and Jessica Meir on October 18, 2019, during Expedition 61 on the International Space Station.
 * The first female Asian and Chinese woman to perform an EVA was Wang Yaping on 8 November 2021, outside the Chinese Tiangong space station.
 * The first Native American woman to perform a space walk was Nicole Aunapu Mann on January 20, 2023, during Expedition 68 on the International Space Station.
 * The first EVA by a non-Soviet, non-American was made on December 9, 1988, by Jean-Loup Chrétien of France during a three-week stay on the Mir space station.
 * The first EVA by a black African-American was on February 9, 1995, by Bernard A. Harris Jr during STS-63.
 * The first EVA by a Japanese astronaut was made on November 25, 1997, by Takao Doi during STS-87.
 * The first EVA by a Swiss astronaut was made on December 23, 1999, by Claude Nicollier during STS-103.
 * The first EVA by an Australian-born person was on March 13, 2001, by Andy Thomas (although he is a naturalized US citizen).
 * The first EVA by a Canadian astronaut was made on April 22, 2001, by Chris Hadfield along with NASA astronaut Scott Parazynski during mission STS-100 to install Canadarm2 on the International Space Station.
 * The first EVA by a Swedish astronaut was made on December 12, 2006, by Christer Fuglesang.
 * The first EVA by a Chinese astronaut was made on September 27, 2008, by Zhai Zhigang during Shenzhou 7 mission. The spacewalk, using a Feitian space suit, made China the third country to independently carry out an EVA.
 * The first EVA by an Italian astronaut was made on July 9, 2013, by Luca Parmitano along with NASA Astronaut Chris Cassidy during Expedition 36 on the International Space Station.
 * The first EVA by a British astronaut was on January 15, 2016, by Tim Peake.
 * Although British-American Michael Foale carried out an EVA on February 9, 1995, he flew as an American astronaut in NASA's program.
 * The first EVA by an Arab astronaut was made on April 28, 2023, by Emirati astronaut Sultan Al Neyadi.

Commemoration
The first spacewalk, made by Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, was commemorated in 1965 with several Eastern Bloc stamps (see Alexei Leonov). Since the Soviet Union did not publish details of the Voskhod spacecraft at the time, the spaceship depiction in the stamps was purely fictional.

The U.S. Post Office issued a postage stamp in 1967 commemorating Ed White's first American spacewalk. The engraved image has an accurate depiction of the Gemini IV spacecraft and White's space suit.

Designations
NASA "spacewalkers" during the Space Shuttle program were designated as EV-1, EV-2, EV-3 and EV-4 (assigned to mission specialists for each mission, if applicable).

Camp-out procedure
For EVAs from the International Space Station, NASA employed a camp-out procedure to reduce the risk of decompression sickness. This was first tested by the Expedition 12 crew. During a camp-out, astronauts sleep overnight in the airlock prior to an EVA, lowering the air pressure to 10.2 psi, compared to the normal station pressure of 14.7 psi. Spending a night at the lower air pressure helps flush nitrogen from the body, thereby preventing "the bends". More recently astronauts have been using the In-Suit Light Exercise protocol rather than camp-out to prevent decompression sickness.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Extravehicular activity


text:
Talk:Evolutionary tree

Poll
A poll is currently being taken on how mammals should be split up. To vote, please visit WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria. Thanks, it'll really be useful. --Ingoolemo 03:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Article does not define the term
This article talks a lot about "evolutionary tree", but if you read it closely, it never once says WHAT IT IS. It says "is supposed to be something like this list", or "is often based upon some branch of biology", etc., etc., but a clear definition is never given. This is important, because all debates about how accurate the various "examples" of the tree offered are, how they can be compared with each other and the ideal conception of what the tree is, this is not possible without a clear definition of the tree. Biologists reading the article may think the definition is implicit; however, I am not a biologist, and from the article, I only gain a vague sense of the concept, and to be honest I walk away not really sure what it is after all.

This tree doesn't have much to do with cladistics. The splits aren't binary and no explanation is given for their arrangement. It's really more a phylogenetic tree. I also think this might be a bad idea in general because nobody really knows how the lower groups are arranged, and most of the higher ones will be discussed in a different article. What do we plan to put here that won't be contained in Monera, Archaea, Eukaryota, Protista, Plantae, Fungi, or Animalia, with more room for details and explanations? Not meaning to be negative... --Josh Grosse
 * Rememberr that we do now know something about the relationships of the "Kingdoms," and this is discussed well on several other pages. (I refer to the non-esistence of a monophyletic Kingdom (or whatever you want to call it)    of ""Protista"", and the relative close relationsip of Fungi, to Animalia.

I agree it is not a formal cladistics diagram because no explanation is given for the arrangements. The non-binary splits were meant to represent currently unknown sequences of binary splits. I also agree that there is a lot of uncertainty that will necessitate future correction. However as a lay person I found such trees a compelling view of taxonomy and I think it gives a different perspective that is not widely known. I am not suggesting that this tree be the main entry point into the wikipedia taxonomy, just an alternate view. --Eob
 * Isn't the idea to base the pages on what is widely known, and preseting new theories in that context. This is not a dictionary for scientists, translating the techinical concepts into every-day ones; this is an encyclopedia for general use, helping the readers (who look up topics according to the language they customarily use) to find out a more exact knowledge. DGG 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now subpages I definitely disagree with. If we have enough information on animals to warrant a separate page, why doesn't that info just go on Animalia? There is already a nice summary chart there, with basically the same structure and content as what one would expect here. --JG
 * First of all, we do now know something about the relationships of the "Kingdoms," and this is discussed well on several other pages. (I refer to the non-esistence of a monophyletic Kingdom (or whatever you want to call it)    of ""Protista"", and the relative close relationsip of Fungi, to Animalia.

My concept was that these new "tree pages'", such as Tree of life/Animalia, would be parallel and complementary to the current "prose pages", such as Animalia. They would be different to the prose pages in the following ways: --Eob
 * 1) They give a summary index into the prose pages.
 * 2) They do not contain any text other than a few words on each tree node.
 * 3) They allow for easier and quicker navigation through the tree of life.
 * 4) They emphasise the latest thinking in taxonomy and phylogeny which is quite different to the classical Linnaean taxonomy that many people would have learned in school.

Hmm, the quicker and easier I can see. I'll cooperate now. :) As for Linnaean taxonomy, though, it's been undergoing quite a few revisions, and it isn't nearly as far apart from cladistics as most people seem to think.  The table on Animalia is, after all, pretty similar to the tree on Animalia. --JG

 * This distinction will be lost on the user.

Think of a book on zoology: for each phylum it discusses the general characteristics and the evolution of the phylumas a whole, and then considers the classes individually.

Suggestion: giving a full context for every page is somewhat of an overkill, since it (1) takes up a very large amount of space, (2) presents information (the upper level placement) that is completely irrelevant to people primarily interested in the minutiae of the tree, and (3) makes the page far more likely to be rendered obsolete by new data. How about using partial contexts that only go up to the subpage branched off from? --JG

 * What to you intend by "full context?" Shouldn't we show how a page is related to other pages, not just listing all the possibilities and leaving it to the reader to try them all? We seem to be having difficulties ourselves in distinguishing them, which is all the more reason to try. If they are too closely related to be distinguished, shouldn't the pages be merged?

Breaking abruptly in, like the WIKIng I am: When I started to clear upp the animal mess on a Swedish wiki I didnt know very much of all the efforts and discussions here. There I slowly during a month worked out a system on my own without having anyone to ask. When I then migrated to the Swedish wikipedia, where I am presently trying to bring with me the former work (a lot of articles) it was natural to bring the system with me, since its following every species and every higher level upto the organisms, and even with a link to Linné. With this system you can independently climb the systematics from species of plants to orgonisms and with some three clicks make a halt at man.

This application is actually no tree, but I was not sure where to put this question, so i left it here where I saw people discussing things that interest me. If its polluting this tree discussion, meybe someone helpful can move it there, and give me ahint at may page?

Its horizontal, and like the normal page links at yahoo and others, and it doesnt (normally) take more than one line, its very fast and easy to work with using copy and paste technique. I usually put this above the species info, and cut this "balk" and the species info with a line, it looks basically like this:

Linnés Systematik: Stam: Ryggradsdjur, Klass: Däggdjur, Ordning: Rovdjur, Familj: Kattdjur (Felidae)

and here comes the info, about the tiger etc...

You can see http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/systema_naturae how the explanation of the hierarchy words are done and an example how the groups themselves are xeplained and linked at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/tiger. Follow the ape instinct in u and climb the "tree" there.

The two system could be integrated, I disnt in order to avoid confusing "laymen". The two systems are interlinked anyway at the page "systematik" and the page about Linné.

Anyhow, now I see that that "standard" here is the horizontal "colonn" style which is also a cute one, but takes more space, and doesnt provide as much info?

I am a friend of standard, and doesnt really want the Swedish wikipedia to be different from the others. Before I saw your discussions I showed this for the Danes, and I think they consider using it. And suddenly I am not so sure anymore, can only say I am extremely pleased with the concept I am using, but Im the only one "over there in Thule" who is interested. Glad for comments! :) Dan Koehl

discredited ideas
This is my first talk page entry, so beware and stuff. I read this line:

The description as a "tree" results from earlier ideas of life as a progression from lower to higher forms. Although such views are discredited now, the imagery is too well established to be readily lost. and I wondered how such views were discredited and also about the very nature of these poorly described views. Please to elaborate?

 * See History of evolutionary thought.

More generally, perhaps the tree model is still used because of the basic concept that an earlier species evolves into two species (as described in speciation). The two species are not more advanced, or "higher." But they are later in time, "younger". Humans anf gorillas have a common ancestor, perhaps Proconsul (genus). Neither humans or gorillas are necessarily better in their ecological niches than Proconsul was it its niche. Nor is it useful to say that they are "higher forms." And, even more, it is not useful to say that humans are a higher form of life than gorillas. They are simply different. DGG 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
I agree that this page should simply become a redirect to phylogenetic tree. I guess the question is, what is the portal to the WP:TOL for a reader who wants to see the highest level of organization, that is, the root of the tree of all of life? Am I missing something, or is this kind of portal, like the home page for |The Tree of Life Web Project, missing? Know what I mean? -Safay 08:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Tree of life seems to be the best to start. Also, the individual domains, such as Archaea have nice boxes with subclassifications, but there is no box with all the top level domains. --Rajah 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evolutionary tree


text:
Erin Brockovich

Erin Brockovich (née Pattee; born June 22, 1960) is an American paralegal, consumer advocate, and environmental activist who was instrumental in building a case against Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) involving groundwater contamination in Hinkley, California for attorney Ed Masry in 1993. Their successful lawsuit was the subject of the Oscar-winning film, Erin Brockovich (2000), starring Julia Roberts as Brockovich and Albert Finney as Masry.

Since then, Brockovich has become a media personality, hosting the TV series Challenge America with Erin Brockovich on ABC and Final Justice on Zone Reality, and became president of Brockovich Research & Consulting. She also works as a consultant for the New York law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg, which has a focus on personal injury claims for asbestos exposure, and Shine Lawyers in Australia. She worked as a consultant for the now-defunct California law firm Girardi & Keese.

Early life
Erin Pattee Brockovich was born in Lawrence, Kansas, the daughter of Betty Jo (born O'Neal; c. 1923–2008), a journalist, and Frank Pattee (1924–2011), an industrial engineer and football player. She has two brothers, Frank Jr. and Thomas (1954–1992), and a sister, Jodie. She graduated from Lawrence High School, then attended Kansas State University, in Manhattan, Kansas, and graduated with an Associate in Applied Arts Degree from Wade College in Dallas, Texas. Brockovich is dyslexic.

Pacific Gas & Electric litigation

In 1993, Brockovich became a whistleblower when she spoke out against PG&E after finding widespread unexplained illness in the town of Hinkley, California. She became instrumental in suing the utility company on behalf of the town. The case (Anderson, et al. v. Pacific Gas & Electric, file BCV 00300) alleged contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium (also written as "chromium 6", "chromium VI", "Cr-VI" or "Cr-6") in the town. At the center of the case was the Hinkley compressor station, built in 1952 as a part of a natural-gas pipeline connecting to the San Francisco Bay Area. Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium in a cooling tower system to fight corrosion. The waste water was discharged to unlined ponds at the site, and some of the waste water percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area of approximately 2 sqmi near the plant. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) put the PG&E site under its regulations in 1968.

The case was settled in 1996 for $333 million ($666.6 million in 2024), the largest settlement ever paid in a direct-action lawsuit in United States history to that date. Masry & Vititoe, the law firm for which Brockovich was a legal clerk, received $133.6 million ($273.4 million in 2024) of that settlement, and Brockovich received $2.5 million as part of her fee.

A study released in 2010 by the California Cancer Registry suggested that cancer rates in Hinkley "remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008". John W. Morgan, an epidemiologist involved in the study said that the 196 cases of cancer reported during the most recent survey of 1996 through 2008 were fewer than what he would expect based on demographics and the regional rate of cancer. However, in June 2013, Mother Jones magazine featured a critique from the Center for Public Integrity of the author's work on the later epidemiological studies, pointing out, for example, that the affected area of Hinkley had been bulldozed by 1996.

, average Cr-6 levels for water from wells in Hinkley were still peaking at 100 times California's maximum contaminant level for the compound at over 1,000 parts per billion, even though, by 2021, PG&E claimed they had cleaned up 70% of the contamination. In October 2022, even though the EPA announced Cr-6 was likely carcinogenic if consumed in drinking water, The American Chemistry Council, an industry lobby group, disputed their finding.

Other litigation
Working with Edward L. Masry, a lawyer based in Thousand Oaks, California, Brockovich went on to participate in other anti-pollution lawsuits. One suit accused the Whitman Corporation of chromium contamination in Willits, California. Another, which listed 1,200 plaintiffs, alleged contamination near PG&E's Kettleman Hills compressor station in Kings County, California, along the same pipeline as the Hinkley site. The Kettleman suit was settled for $335 million in 2006.

In 2003, after experiencing problems with mold contamination in her own home in the Conejo Valley, Brockovich received settlements of $430,000 from two parties, and an undisclosed amount from a third party, to settle her lawsuit alleging toxic mold in her Agoura Hills, California, home. Brockovich then became a prominent activist and educator in the area as well.

Brockovich and Masry filed suit against the Beverly Hills Unified School District in 2003, in which the district was accused of harming the health and safety of its students by allowing a contractor to operate a cluster of oil wells on campus. Brockovich and Masry alleged that 300 cancer cases were linked to the oil wells. Subsequent testing and epidemiological investigation failed to corroborate a substantial link, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Wendell Mortimer granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs. In May 2007, the school district announced that it was to be paid $450,000 as reimbursement for legal expenses.

Brockovich assisted in the filing of a lawsuit against Prime Tanning Corp. of St. Joseph, Missouri, in April 2009. The lawsuit claims that waste sludge from the production of leather, containing high levels of hexavalent chromium, was distributed to farmers in northwest Missouri to use as fertilizer on their fields. It is believed to be a potential cause of an abnormally high number of brain tumors around the town of Cameron, Missouri. Prior to the lawsuit, the site was investigated by the EPA and at the time, the agency found "no detections of total chromium", and added, "we would like to get any specific information from this law firm as soon as we can so we can evaluate it, and we intend to ask for that directly." The EPA, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Health and a state epidemiologist had been investigating what residents believed were a high number of brain tumors in the area — more than 70 since 1996. The epidemiologist had stated the numbers did not seem abnormally high.

In June 2009, Brockovich began investigating a case of contaminated water in Midland, Texas. "Significant amounts" of hexavalent chromium were found in the water of more than 40 homes in the area, some of which have now been fitted with state-monitored filters on their water supply. Brockovich said: "The only difference between here and Hinkley is that I saw higher levels here than I saw in Hinkley."

In 2012, Brockovich became involved in the mysterious case of 14 students from LeRoy, New York, who began reporting perplexing medical symptoms, including tics and speech difficulties. Brockovich believed environmental pollution from the 1970 Lehigh Valley Railroad derailment was the cause and conducted testing in the area. Brockovich was supposed to return to LeRoy to present her findings, but never did; in the meantime, the students' doctors determined the cause was mass psychogenic illness, and that the media exposure was exacerbating the symptoms. No environmental causes were found after repeat testing, and the students improved once the media attention died down.

In early 2016, Brockovich became involved in potential litigation against Southern California Gas for the Aliso Canyon gas leak, a large methane leak from its underground storage facility near the community of Porter Ranch, north of Los Angeles.

In early 2023, within hours of the Feb. 3 Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, Brockovich started getting calls for assistance from the community about the toxic chemical fires. She has been interviewed on various news outlets, from independent media to national networks. A few weeks later, Brockovich traveled to East Palestine, where she was interviewed by local media, and appeared at one of several high-profile town hall meetings on Friday night, Feb. 24th. At the meeting, Brockovich and an attorney highlighted decades of toxic chemical train derailments. Among Brockovich's many concerns is the potential groundwater contamination after chemicals were, as she describes it, dumped in a big hole in the ground and burned off. A recurring theme of her appearances is that the nation has, for decades, in the name of profits over people, failed to undertake infrastructure improvements, enact tighter regulations, and adequately protect the health, safety and welfare of communities from long-term bodily harm and environmental damage. Brockovich continues to cite the Hinkley case and Flint water crisis, as well as the 2013 Lac-Megantic, Canada oil train catastrophe.

Awards

 * Honorary Doctor of Laws and commencement speaker at Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon, in May 2005
 * Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and commencement speaker at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, on May 5, 2007
 * Honorary Master of Arts, Business Communication, from Jones International University, Centennial, Colorado

Movies and television
Brockovich's work in bringing litigation against Pacific Gas & Electric was the focus of the 2000 feature film Erin Brockovich, starring Julia Roberts in the title role. The film was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Director, Best Picture, and Best Writing in a Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen. Roberts won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of Erin Brockovich. Brockovich herself had a cameo role as a waitress named Julia.

Brockovich had a more extensive role in the 2012 documentary Last Call at the Oasis, which focused on not only water pollution but also the overall state of water scarcity as it relates to water policy in the United States.

On April 8, 2021, Rebel, a television series which creator Krista Vernoff loosely based on Brockovich's life, premiered on ABC.

Books and articles
Brockovich's first book, Take It from Me: Life's a Struggle But You Can Win (ISBN 978-0071383790), was published in 2001. A second book, Superman's Not Coming, was released on August 25, 2020.

In 2021, Brockovich wrote about hormone-disrupting chemicals (such as PFAS) eroding human fertility at an alarming rate.

On February 8, 2022, Brockovich wrote an article talking about the case of Steven Donziger, a lawyer who won an $18 billion judgment against Chevron before being jailed for contempt of court after refusing to turn his phone and computer over to Chevron's legal team.

Personal life
Brockovich has three children: a son, Matthew, and a daughter, Katie, from her first marriage to Shawn Brown, and a daughter, Elizabeth ("Beth"), from her second marriage to Steven Brockovich. Her third husband was actor and country-musician DJ, Eric L. Ellis. As of 2016, Brockovich resides in Agoura Hills, California, in a house she purchased in 1996 with her US$2.5 million bonus after the Hinkley settlement.

title: Erin Brockovich


text:
Talk:Erin Brockovich

CCR Study
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)

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)

 * 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.  He has been known to accept undisclosed funding from the business interests he supports.  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)
 * 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.

 * A better question is why are edits on a TALK page being reverted without so much as an explanation? I'm done with Wikipedia. Honestly. The lack of transparency and appeal to popular belief here is laughable.Smidoid (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Miss Wichita
Was Erin really Miss Wichita? Or was that just artistic license? Tom e rtalk 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
 * Tom e rtalk 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Questionably deleted text
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)

"Chromium(VI) is known to be toxic and carcinogenic, 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. 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. When Harvard's School of Public Health gave Brockovich an award in 2005, scientists were divided on the merits of her work. 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) shows that animals given hexavalent chromium for three months developed malignant tumors on their pituitary gland. 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)

Two different birthdays in article?! Which is it?! Should be corrected right away!
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))

 * 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)

Pacific Gas and Electric litigation comment on background levels
"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)

Odd omission and argumentation
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)

 * 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)

The law firm who sued PG&E regarding to Hinkley groundwater contamination
Was Masry's law firm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.25.50 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

June 2013 arrest
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. — QuicksilverT @ 03:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * Im going to have to disagree. Public figures getting arrested (was she convicted?) of a serious crime like DUI is inherently noteworthy. It is not at all like a burned out taillight. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 * It is absolutely insane to compare a broken tail light to a choice to do something that kills and severely injures so many people every year. As as a woman famous for forcing others to pay for their legal transgressions, her own decision to violate a law that puts so many innocent people at risk is absolutely appropriate for a bio. If a DUI arrest is not worthy of being in her bio, then Wikipedia should be wiped clean of every single arrest on every single person's page.

 * Yes, a conviction for DUI (or other serious offense) is germane (that is, both relevant and appropriate), especially in the life of one who criticizes others and seeks to dictate the behavior of others.
 * However, if the prosecutor did not get a conviction, then let's omit an acquittal.
 * A conviction matters greatly, but an acquittal does not matter nearly as much.
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

 * Except she WASN'T acquitted. Like many famous people, she was allowed to plea it down to virtually nothing, and then pled no contest. Surely Wikipedia knows the difference between No Contest (which is the defendant admitting there is likely enough evidence to find them guilty, without actually admitting guilt) and actually being acquitted. If you are acquitted, you don't pay fines, serve 25 hours of community service and have to go to safety school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.255.149.63 (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Nonetheless, there's no conviction of drunken boating.
 * If anyone wishes to pursue the matter of a plea bargain, will someone please present a credible report of it, including the terms and the performance or resolution of it?
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
 * But again...what I am saying is, if a plea bargain isn't worthy of being in a bio (and I realize it IS on this page now) then there are literally HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of Wikipedia bio pages that need to be scrubbed of mentions of arrests since may end in plea bargains. And with Brockovich, a case could be made that it is MORE newsworthy than some random actor or actress because she is famous for seeing that people who violate the law are punished. Her getting a DUI means more than, say, Paris Hilton doing so because there is hypocrisy on Brockovich's part. As for a source for the plea bargain... http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/Erin-Brockovich-resolves-Nevada-drunken-boating-case-226541291.html198.255.149.63 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I get it; she's a hypocrite because she allegedly got caught driving while intoxicated, so her exposure of mass pollution by a corporation should somehow be discounted. How inane and smug of an attitude is that? I guess it's a difference in scale.  Some of Hitler's victims got parking tickets so who are they to accuse him of lawbreaking.  Give us a break!

To whom it may concern: How are Hitler and parking tickets relevant to a discussion of Erin Brockovich's DUI?

I've removed the brief mention that was reintroduced. Seems to be a POV, BLP, and NOT vio, especially in light of the comments above. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Provocative attire
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)

"Brockovich's attorneys"?
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)
 * Hearing nothing, I rewrote this entire section of the article. Casey (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Adding a controversy section
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * As it notes here, we generally avoid having controversy sections. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)

Mother Jones/CPI
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)

title: Talk:Erin Brockovich