Talk:Michael D. Brown/Archive 1

FEMA page

The FEMA page needs updating. It says that the current chairman is Micheal Brown, though homepage says he was removed.

Redirect

I propose leaving "Michael Brown" to re-direct to "Michael D. Brown" for a few more weeks because of Hurricane Katrina. After a period of time it should become a disambiguation page because there are other more notable Michael Browns, such as the Nobel prize winner. -- Bubbachuck 17:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the redirect in the first place (before, the article went to Michael Brown (writer)) and I agree with this. But for the next few months, at least, this guy is the most notable Michael Brown around. Probably once someone finds a reason to object, it will be time to shove this guy out of the spotlight. Eliot 17:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

However, there is another currently ongoing news story about another Michael Brown - Michael E. Brown is the Cal Tech astronomer who led the team that has recently discovered the tenth planet, and has an ongoing dispute about whether it was his team or a Spanish team who discovered the Kuiper Belt Object 2003 EL61. (I've contributed to the Michael E. Brown page, so you know where I'm coming from.) He has a pending appeal right now before the IAU, and there is significant evidence that the Spanish team fraudulently stole data from Brown's team to usurp their discovery; this story has very recently been featured in major media such as the New York Times and NPR, and is likely to be of interest to many Wikipedia readers. I think that's good reason to turn "Michael Brown" back into a disambig page. User:Reaverdrop 02:00, 15 September 2005 (GMT)

Content issues

However, others contend that CNN and other media outlets fail to represent the true breadth of public opinion in an attempt to discredit the administration. An ABC poll shortly after the disaster demonstrated that more Americans consider local and state agencies in Louisiana responsible for delays in deploying aid than FEMA.

Cut this part, there is no numbers to convey the viewpoints, and "discredit the administration" is 1, not a faithful facts, 2, michael brown is hardly equal to administration, there is no need for this conclusion to be written here. --C.levin 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I revert the part saying michael brown ask other states to restrain aid until spefcific request after Katrina's hit, this is supported by msnbc/AP etc, i dont understand why it was removed by someone. --C.levin 11:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A Little Question

Would "Michael Brown is incompetent" be considered a bit too POV? -Rwv37 00:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not, I think, if it's a quote from someone else. Eliot 14:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Are there any facts at all that suggest he is not? T-mccool 00:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's a quote from me. Does that count? -Rwv37 02:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

BROWN'S LAW DEGREE ACCREDITATION: The article states that Brown's JD degree came from Oklahoma City University School of Law and then needlessly adds that the school was not accredited by the Association of American Law Schools at the time, as if to imply an unaccredited degree when in fact the school had at the time of Brown's degree accreditation from the American Bar Association (1960), Oklahoma Supreme Court, State of Oklahoma, and North Central Association among others. The statement should either be removed or ABA accreditation added. Those who know the school know how highly it is regarded, ask Sandra Day O'Connor, and that the school had in place prior to 1981 a strong faculty and new facilities.

POV getting out of hand

Since media criticism of Brown is becoming all too abundant, and after the rather questionable addition of several bloggers and removal of Maureen Dowd from the article, I decided to remove the section entirely. Of course I wouldn't object to someone replacing it as long as it doesn't become another laundry list full of embedded political back-and-forths. Eliot 02:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The removal of factual, verifiable, relevant information that nobody disputes is itself POV. NPOV is not about hiding information which is controversial or emotionally disquieting, it is about properly attributing it. The media reaction to Brown's actions is significant and should be in the article. I will restore it after things have cooled down.--Eloquence* 09:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need a paragraph for each of the two dozen editorials written about Brown in the last week, and we certainly don't need the inevitable 'rebuttal' paragraph that someone would put in for each. Write a summary of the criticism, preferably about Brown himself and not about the agency he runs. Eliot 14:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Since this is an ongoing emergency response, issues and the facts (and I mean facts, not opinions by mostly self-serving, self-motivated people in media and government) have not been addressed by an official investigation. It's silly and somewhat negligent to place such blame on a single person or entity especially when there are multiple levels of government that are at least partially culpable for the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina. Granted the response was slow but it's still not evident why. The relevant issues are still being mucked up by the relevant authorities each trying to protect their own ass by playing the blame game. Although Mayor Ray Nagin has shown tremedous albeit late compassion and anger starting a couple of days after the hurricane hit, it's amazing how he gets to defend himself on Wikipedia with an emotional interview, while Michael Brown and, to a lesser extent, Governor Kathleen Blanco are more heavily criticized. Even Harry Connick, Jr (hardly an insider but nevertheless a New Orleans native) accused Nagin (later rescinded by Connick with an apology) of being an absentee mayor immediately after the hurricane hit because nobody knew where Nagin was. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the public is better served with an even-handed debate (i.e., both sides represented) until the facts become clear.

Here's a video link of the interview with Harry Connick Jr, when he mentions Nagin, he is hardly accusing, but here is Connick in New Orleans, NBC, Video

Brown, not FEMA

FEMA already has an article, and I invite everybody to contribute to it because it wasn't too good last I checked. Keep in mind this is a biographical article, and details about FEMA should be restricted, I think, to things that Brown was directly and personally responsible for. I don't think this article is an appropriate dumping ground for all the ways that FEMA has screwed up its Hurricane Katrina response. Eliot 14:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Perjury Bells are ringing - Brown's resume is a falsified document

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1103003,00.html

If his resume was submitted to Congress during his confirmation, then he may well have committed perjury and could do serious time. Benjamin Gatti

In the 1970s he served as an assistant to the city manager of Edmond, Oklahoma. While the White House claims that he had emergency services oversight in this position, city officials deny this, saying that the position was comparable to an internship. He also worked as a city councilman, although most of his career was spent in private practice."

This needs attribution, source!Kyle Andrew Brown 16:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Taken care of. Eliot 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Photoshop

Photo needs work, the FEMA sourced photo is clear, one uploaded to WIKI is not in resolution.Kyle Andrew Brown 16:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I just uploaded a higher-resolution version. What's going on is that your browser has the old picture cached and is showing it at the resolution of the newer one. Do a reload flushing cache (Shift-reload in most browsers) and you will see the better picture. Eliot 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Cabinet-level status

Please see United States Cabinet#Cabinet-level administration offices. The Under-Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response is a cabinet-level office and attends cabinet meetings, although FEMA itself is no longer a cabinet-level agency.

By the way, Kyle, thank you for your help, and please don't think I don't appreciate it. I hope I didn't intimidate you out of editing the article further. Eliot 18:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no, I see you doing terrific. I still read, tho, "which replaced the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)." which sorta reads that FEMA is gone. Homeland kinda merged all these organizations under one umbrella and they often kept their "names" and hierarchy. BTW: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=awkkCzemn0Sg&refer=columnist_carlson# Oh this is getting all so painful...Kyle Andrew Brown 19:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of current event tag

This is no longer a current event article. The Katrina story will continue but Brown is not going to be a continuing part of it. The BBC and other news outlets report him as having been relieved of duty. The only update to this story that is likely to occur in the next few months is the announcement that he is taking a position in the private sector somewhere. --Gorgonzilla 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

His next post could be in the slammer - They put (white) people in jail for perjury these days. I doubt the dead will allow his lies to pass away silently. Deaths which occur in the course of a felony are considered Murder 2 I believe. Benjamin Gatti

Are you nuts? Michael Brown is the subject of the top story on CNN, Yahoo News, BBC, and whatever else, RIGHT NOW. It's exactly what the current event tag is for! You may as well just take the current event tag off of William Rehnquist because he's dead. (No, actually, don't.) Eliot 20:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it likely that there is going to be any significant event in either story in the next few months? When CNN and every news outlet is reporting a story that is often a sign that it is no longer news. Chertoff on the other hand is going to become the new story. --Gorgonzilla 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's likely that hundreds of people will visit this article in the next few days because of the news coverage, and many of them will want to edit it. I think it's also likely that people at newsdesks around the country are researching this guy for upcoming articles, and it's likely that he will resign from FEMA soon. This is the sort of article that the flux/current tags are for. Eliot 21:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind all the investigations -- congressional and otherwise -- that're going to be starting up real soon now. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Betcha you feel silly today. I'd say we got a significant event. ;) — ceejayoz ^★ 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

hmmmm, considering the dramatic dropoff of cindy edits, if the Under Secretary does not get involved in an incident at his National Disaster Medical System and the Nuclear Incident Response Team portfolio, then the same dropoff of interest is likely to occur here as well...Kyle Andrew Brown 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The anon user who added it only specified 'inappropriate use of the word "claim"' in his edit summary. The uses of the word claim at the time were:

• His White House biography claims that he had emergency services oversight
• Media investigations have recently found significant discrepencies between the credentials Brown claims to have and his actual experience.
• However, some IAHA insiders claimed that this was what really led to his ouster.

I can't see how any of these uses are POV. Anyone care to take a stab at it? Eliot 21:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I felt the use of the word claim was inappropriate for the article altho I was completely understanding of the rhetoric given the events of Friday September 9, 2005 and the charges of padding his resume. I believe someone has removed claim, and the carefully editing and guidance by Rebrane removes the need for the tag. I also note the tagger did not engage in any discussion in TALK to my knowledge which is appropriate for what should follow tagging...Kyle Andrew Brown 21:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The way it's treated at the moment I think is OK. However, this statement: Media investigations have recently found significant discrepencies between the credentials Brown claims to have and his actual experience. needs some sourcing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the article is on solid grounds here, just turn on the News Channels today Friday September 9, 2005. Also, there is the Time Mag link of the same days online report on the resume padding investigations. The Under Secretary also appears to have directed an update to his FindLaw.com resume, as linked to in the Time article - the notation of the change was made September 8, 2005.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Kyle Andrew Brown 21:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Kyle, you're probably right but a claim like that still needs some sourcing within the article (i.e. in-line links to information that can be independently examined), as well as some more specifics on what media, what investigations, and what they turned up. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think what I'm just limiting my comment to is the use "claim" to try to indicate that what the FEMA bio and his FACTLAW.com bio says is suspect. I did not think that it was appropriate to use claim in that context. I do think it appropriate to phrase "it states in ____" however, the record shows ____ and reported by _____, and _____ had a contrary ____ of what is stated in the bios.

I have the impression the tag judging from what the comment the tagger left briefly noted, was that the use of claim in the earlier edits was POV editorializing. With the "claim" usage removed it respects the reason the tag was given. However, the article properly can state the dispute around the bios as you say, Katefan0, using facts...Kyle Andrew Brown 22:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I took out that sentence since it wasn't clearly referring to anything. (I think it used to be, but me or someone else moved what it was referring to.) Eliot 22:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I dont think the Under Secretary's postion was helped by the New Yorker this week: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/050912ta_talk_remnick

"IAHA became financially depleted and had to be merged with the Arabian Horse Registry of America" whoever finally put this sentence together from the many trys - great job!Kyle Andrew Brown 13:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"on Friday 09/09/05 ABC Evening News had footage of the city manager ( who hired him) at the time of Brown's hiring adversely depicting him, mirroring the Time mag article. Sorry, my DVR did not capture that so I cant quote it or find it via google.Kyle Andrew Brown 13:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my POV/NPOV changes

There is nothing POV about what was just reverted due to supposed POVness, to wit: "in the wake of what is commonly believed to be grossly incompetent handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as well as allegations that he was never qualified for the job in the first place". There is a common belief that he was grossly incompetent in his handling of Katrina, and there are widespread allegations that he was never qualified for the job in the first place. POV would be stating that he did handle it in a grossly incompetent manner, or that he was never qualified. NPOV does not mean "ignore the reality of widespread public opinion". Moreover, these beliefs and allegations are directly relevant to why he resigned.

If someone undoes my changes again, I will not un-undo them, but the fact is that my changes are not POV. -Rwv37 20:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

"finally resigned" is definitely POV. It has only been ten days. "commonly believed" implies a majority of some group (U.S. citizens) all share the same belief. "Allegations of incompentence" achieves the same goal with less POV. "never qualified for the job in the first place" is poor English and is not the point - if he had done a great job in the past two weeks, he would still have falsehoods on his resume, but would have demonstrated competence for the job. Rillian 20:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You will note that I was not the one who put in "finally resigned", and moreover I did not restore it when I restored my changes. "Common" does not imply "majority", and you're fooling no one but yourself if you're actually claiming that it is not commonly believed that his handling of Katrina was grossly incompetent. The latest SurveyUSA poll has twenty-nine percent of people rating his performance as a one on a scale from one (lowest) to ten (highest), which was almost triple the next most common rating (which, incidentally, was two out of ten). That is a common belief that he handled the situation with gross incompetence. If "never qualified for the job in the first place" is poor English (which, incidentally, I fail to see the reason for), then you should fix the English, not the meaning of the statement. Finally, your final statement in this response implies that "falsehoods on his resume" is equivalent to, and the sole basis of, allegations that he is not, and never was, qualified for the job; that simply is not the case. -Rwv37 22:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are no objective qualifications for the job, hence you can't be objectively unqualified, only subjectively. The only requirement to hold the position is to be confirmed by the Senate, which he was. Now, I'm not a supporter and, if I had been in the Senate, would not have voted to confirm him, but "never qualified for the job in the first place" is POV. Rillian 00:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have already clearly stated, yes, "was never qualified for the job" is POV, but it is also not what I said. That he resigned in the face of widespread allegations that he was never qualified for the job - which is what I said - is not POV. It is fact. And it remains fact, regardless of whether you are "a supporter" or not, and of whether you "would have voted to confirm him" or not - neither of which are germane to this discussion anyway. -Rwv37 00:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beg to differ - one "qualification" is to tell the truth at the confirmation hearing. If in fact he represented his bio fraudulently, then he is unfit and fails to satisfy the "subjective" requirements such as they are. (PS can you say Perjury) Benjamin Gatti

Nice work

I had previously contributed to the section written below on Brown's being placed in charge and ultimately removed. While I always think my writing is great, kudos to whoever wrote the below sections -- they are strongly written and a clear improvement.

On August 31, 2005, following Hurricane Katrina being named an "Incident of National Significance," Brown was named the Principal Federal Official and placed in charge of the federal government's response by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. On September 7, 2005, Coast Guard Chief of Staff Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen was named Brown's deputy and given operational control of search-and-rescue and recovery efforts. [15]

On September 9, 2005, Chertoff relieved Brown of all on-site relief duties along the Gulf Coast, officially replacing him with Allen. Brown remained Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response. Brown told the Associated Press that "the press" was making him a scapegoat for the allegedly slow federal response to the hurricane. [16]

On September 12, 2005, Brown announced his resignation as director of FEMA. Andrewrowe 22:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)User:Andrewrowe

NPOV

I have just now read this article for the first time, and what strikes me about it are two aspects:

1. The proportion of information tied to Hurricane Katrina compared to the rest of the article is rather unbalanced.

2. Most of the facts chosen for listing in this biographical article are either decidedly negative or indicate nearly beyond doubt that the man is somehow a most shady and corrupt individual.

Is this, perhaps, a case of one or more people mentioning negative events in the man's life in order to lead a reader to a conclusion concerning more recent events? Or is the man really as inept and/or corrupt as the article seems to want to say?

I am not really looking for dialogue on the matter, since I just happened to be curious about what this man's article here might look like at the moment, so please, make you responses neutral as to how they are addressed. I did want to mention these observations, though, in case they makes sense to someone who wants to edit the article. P.MacUidhir 12:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "the proportion of information tied to Hurricane Katrina compared to the rest of the article" being "rather unbalanced": Katrina was by far the most significant event that Brown was involved in, and he was involved in it to a great degree. Or at least he was supposed to be. -Rwv37 18:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Indy Research

Anon editor 67.180.222.201 added: "A phone call to the OMPA by this Wikipedian also revealed that another individual, Charles Lam, serves as Chairman. Finally, an OMPA employee and the other OMPA staffers he asked had ever heard of a Michael Brown associated with the Authority." The editor did a good job with the rest of the "Accusations of false claims in Brown's credentials" section, well sourced and all, but the independent research is anti-wiki; "this Wikipedian" is not a verifiable source. I'm going to remove the "offending" sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RattBoy (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 September 2005

Florida '04

Brown was in charge of FEMA during the horrible Florida '04 hurricane travails (One of those four - at least, I think it was four total - was a Cat 5 at one point too, wasn't it? What was the name of the one that went right across the middle of the state, devastasting great swathes as it did so?), but there doesn't seem to be anything in the article about the effectiveness of he and the agency he ran during them. Can anyone fill that gap in the coverage? Noel (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Charley hit from the west, Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Jeanne hit from the east near the center of the state, and Hurricane Ivan (at one point a CAT 5) hit the panhandle. 157.30.140.184 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be expanded upon. Right now the only two hurricane recoveries he is noted for are the minor scandal following Frances and then the Katrina debacle. Without at least mentioning what he did right during the 2004 season, not to mention any other emergencies or disasters that might have happened since he took office, this article doesn't smell quite as NPOV as it should. Not to sound like that would make up for his botching of the Katrina disaster - the man is a moron, after all. I'd like to see a picture of his quivering lip during the Senate hearings put up on the article. --SomethingFunny 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brownie

I believe GWB said, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Not "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." Anyone have thoughts on that?

Regardless of the semantics, this quote was repeated in the article at least 3 times. Many other anecdotes and quotes have been repeated also. It's seems more of a lengthy compendium criticisms on the man than what should be a fair and balanced account. This article needs a good, thorough cleanup edit by someone with more time and energy than myself. Landroo 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Task for this article

When the dust all settles and the fruits of meticulous research published, someone please construct an actual what Brown was doing during Katrina timeline. We have a laundry list of grievances, right now, of what other ppl offered and he ignored--hardly substansive content. Lotsofissues 13:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish?

Does anyone have a good source that he's Jewish (he was in the Jewish Americans category)? It doesn't really seem like he would be from the bio details, but I could be wrong. But, I don't think there will ever be a Jewish person with the middle name "DeWayne". Vulturell 06:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Exoneration?

Considering the latest videos that are coming to light it appears Brown may end up deserving an abject apology. He told all his superiors - on tape no less - that it was going to hit the fan big time in New Orleans, but he was given no backup - raises lots of questions as to why and who was really incompetent ( or maybe the city was let go on purpose - a real conspiricy theory for you ). Why does wikipedia have so many ad homimem articles attacking individuals - the research isn't good enough to be so sure of yourself and so damn mean at the same time. ( just a suggestion - maybe take this article off before wiki looks like... welll... wiki)159.105.80.224 16:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The recent tapes http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-01-video-katrina-warning_x.htm seem to show that Brown was scapegoated by the media and by the administration. I added new stuff to counterbalance some of the negative stuff about Brown I am also becoming less convinced that some of the quotes about his emails are very relevant (who cares if he had a PR person who thought he should appear on camera with his sleeves rolled up or if he took 20-30 minutes to eat dinner, how is it relevant?). Based on the new evidence I think this guy is getting a bum rap.

footnotes

there's something wrong with the footnotes, specifically 24 and 12.

12 is supposed to refer to a St louis times article about IAHA, but instead goes to an airzona newpaper's site map. Similarly, 24 seems to be a footnote for the St louis Times Dispatch article, but in the body of the article, 24 sits just next to the "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" quote.

Brown's tenure in IAHA was bizarre, in that he was brought in specifically because he was an outsider to investigate various problems with Boggs, but ended up getting personally sued. Would have thoght there was a good chance he would have anticipated a legal response to stirring the waters around Mr. Boggs. Was interested in reading articles about this time period, but the references are off.

Extraordinarily poor article

Judging by the chatter above, this man ceased to be a current news event around November 2005. I would have expected the article to improve since then, but it has instead sat and curdled like milk that has been left behind a radiator. It is a terrible advertisement for Wikipedia. It needs to start off with a short paragraph explaining why Mr Brown is notable. Then there should be a thorough biography. And then there should be a well-written section about his intersection with Hurricane Katrina, and his post-Katrina activities. Instead the article is alternately skimpy and impenetrably overdetailed; it is poorly-written throughout and the formatting is all over the place. Half-way through it turns into a succession of single-sentence paragraphs. It is as if the article was made out of footnotes that had migrated into the main text. Lupine Proletariat 10:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Post-Resignation Commentary"

I removed this section and the only paragraph underneath it, a quote from The Daily Show poking fun at Brown. I'm definitely no fan of Brown's, and I love TDS, but it seemed gratuitously POV to have it there. Like, enough already, ya know? PacificBoy 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why mostly concervative critics

Why are alomost all of the critics of Brown quoted concervatives? There is a whole section on concervative bloggers, but not on liberal bloggers. This seems like an effort to shift blame away from concervative policies. Ace-o-aces 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest comments by Brown

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/katrina.brown.ap/index.html

You can read them here. I thought they were very interesting, especially since Kathleen Blanco concurred with him so adamantly. They don't appear to be incorporated into the article at the moment. dreddnott 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-written

Or at least heavily edited to reflect current knowledge. --198.105.65.197 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)