Talk:Michael D. Brown/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redirect

message: :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)
thread_title: Content issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brown, not FEMA 

message: 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)
replies: text: Taken care of. Eliot 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perjury Bells are ringing - Brown's resume is a falsified document 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Photoshop

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cabinet-level status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Florida '04

message: 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)
thread_title: Brownie

message: 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)
thread_title:  Task for this article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Jewish?

message: 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)
thread_title: Exoneration?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extraordinarily poor article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Post-Resignation Commentary" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why mostly concervative critics 

message: 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)
thread_title: Latest comments by Brown

message: Or at least heavily edited to reflect current knowledge. --198.105.65.197 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be re-written