Talk:Karen Silkwood

Untitled
Where did October 24 birthday come from?

Comments
On 20th April 2006, User 205.240.237.103 added the following comments to the article. --Spondoolicks 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This Article needs serious help, please visit
 * Los Alamos Report
 * for further factual information. For example, she died in a car crash on her way back from a union meeting, not to it as claimed in the "Death" section


 * I did re-read the Los Alamos document. Nowhere does it say Silkwood was on her way back from the meeting in Oklahoma City when she crashed. Furthermore, I never saw such a statement in any source I consulted about the event.
 * Chris 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Los Alamos report tells of where she was coming from (a union meeting) but not where she was going to (the subject of the "Death" section) --Kstern999 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

what up

There is (was) an article in the January 1977 Rolling Stone magazine that (if factual) casts loads of suspicion on Kerr-McGee. The author of the article goes as far as to claim that the skid marks from the crash were (mysteriously) paved over before A private investigator could examine the scene. Thegreatjefftaylor 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Silkwood, her partner and housemate were sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory for in-depth testing
This sentence is ambiguous - how many people are we talking about, two or three? Was her "partner" also her housemate? (btw, does partner mean boyfriend, girlfriend, tennis partner, what?) If we're talking about three people, "her partner and a housemate" might work better. 24.90.17.134 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Coroner's Report
There's no citation on the Coroner's Report? Shouldn't something like that be on public file? In point of fact, several of the alternate theories in the death section seem to be marked 'citation needed'. I'm really rather interested in doing some follow up research, but these uncited claims make me... twitchy. --Knnos (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs under popular culture
I don't think this belongs under popular culture. It says- "In the second season, 2008, of Terminator: The Sara Conner Chronicles (that aired September 16) the episode involved a nuclear power plant. 1-2 times Sara Conner had to enter a room a containers which was clearly marked contaminated. She was very concerned it would cause eventual death from cancer (pre-Terminator 3 movie). She was at first apparently found to be contaminated and had to face a shower scrub down by company officials. Later, Cameron, the young female protecting terminator using a device to check her for contamination but said she was clean. Also, Sara used the false name Karen to get hired at power plant and talk to her boss at a bar."

First, its not a one or two sentence reference, its like a paragraph long. Second, It really doesn't make any since unless you are a die hard viewer of Terminator: The Sara Conner Chronicles. All I get out of it is that someone had to take a shower to decontaminate themselves and that Sara gave the false name Karen. Its really stretching it to list this under popular culture so I am removing it. --74.240.229.25 (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While you are right about doubting the above example, you miss a larger issue: Most pop-culture entries, in particular the short ones, are a waste of space contrary to Wikipedias guidelines. Longer entries that describe the impact of a phenomenon on popular culture, other artists, etc. are actually prefered, while the endless listings of references made on Simpsons, Family Guy, etc., are evil. The problem above is not the length, but the low relevance and lack of value for the reader. 94.220.241.90 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for POV issues
I think it is rather obvious that the section on Karen Silkwood's death is badly biased and lacking sources. I think it is important to discuss her death, but it needs to be referenced and balanced and it needs to not have paragraphs like:

''The car mysteriously did not contain any documents, which relatives swore she took with her and had placed them on the seat besides her. The best explanation for this was that they were stolen from her car immediately after the crash.''

-- Aplomado talk 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the POV tag thanks to efforts from a couple of contributors in adding sources. I still had to clean it up a little, but I am currently satisfied with its neutrality and sources. Aplomado  talk 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pine Gap Numbers and Date Discrepancy
The article says that


 * In 1986, over 300 women claiming to be Karen Silkwood were arrested and released without charge after entering Pine Gap.

But the Pine Gap article says it was 111 women and that it happened in 1983. Ileanadu (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture
One of the examples relates dying by peroxide, this makes no sense. Peroxide bleaches, I believe potassium permanganate may have had some use in decontamination and it would stain purplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idyllic press (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete so-called BBC Online source
This is h2g2, a user-content cite, which content is not managed editorially by the BBC. Therefore, it does not qualify as an RS according to Wikipedia guidelines and has been deleted. There are sufficient RS for editors to find and use.--Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Need more sources
There seems to be a strong reliance on Rashke's 1981 book, although there is no confirmation or comment on his giant conspiracy theory, which goes far beyond Kerr-McGee. For NPOV editors need to provide other opinions on his conclusions, and reviews in RS on his book.--Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of footnotes
Howard Kohn's Who Killed Karen Silkwood? (New York: Summit, 1981) was published without footnotes, which weakens it as an RS published as non-fiction. Recommend against using it as a source for this article.--Parkwells (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is so heavily based on this one book - which is not substantiated with where this author gets his information. The autopsy of Silkwood should have numerous other sources for the claims made in this book. Surely involved editors can do better than this? 50.111.49.173 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)