Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency

Template:USGOV

FEMA predicting 3 likeliest disasters facing the USA

Is is appropriate to add that FEMA predicted the three likeliest disasters facing the USA in early 2001 ? - terrorist attack on NY, San Francisco earthquake, New Orleans Hurricane. FEMA withdrew the article and the best confirmation I can find is houston chronicle blog which also links to a LA Times article confirming this

Yes. I have a memo here from FEMA's PIO in late 2001 with extensive details of these predictions. You should be able to find something on this on the FEMA site. 63.199.4.144 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

National Disaster Medical System

As of January 1, 2007 NDMS was moved from FEMA back to the Department of Health and Human Services to its current home in DHHS' Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations. The article needs to be changed to reflect this move.74.72.216.81 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Beland (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "cabinet-level" agency mean with respect to FEMA?

The article notes that FEMA was elevated to cabinet level status in the 1990s by Clinton. ["In 1993, President Bill Clinton elevated FEMA to a cabinet level position and appointed James Lee Witt as FEMA Director. Witt initiated reforms that would help to streamline the disaster recovery and mitigation process."]

This gives the impression that FEMA was a Cabinet Agency (like State, DoD, Agriculture). I think cabinet agency and cabinet-level agency are two different entities. I am unable to find any evidence to support the idea FEMA was a cabinet agency. I am also unable to locate any official document that distinguishes between a cabinet department and a cabinet-level department. I think this topic is important (in this context) because "cabinet-level" was part of what made it so easy to incorporate FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security.

I am told by a knowledgeable emergency management colleague that "The President may include anyone in Cabinet meetings as he/she chooses and that is how they did it with FEMA in Clinton Administration. No legislation or executive order so it [promotion to cabinet-level status] was pro forma."

My question is whether anyone can confirm what seems to be a difference between cabinet and cabinet-level. If there is a difference, my recommendation is to modify the portion of the FEMA entry to clarify that "cabinet level" is not the same as being a "cabinet agency." Bellavita (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC) bellavita

Response to major disasters section needs major cleanup

It contains way too much information that belongs in the criticism section, and hardly any information on FEMA's actual response to major disasters. --Abusing (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Gustav 2008

It's probably a good idea to update this article concerning FEMA's response to Hurricane Gustav --Zybez (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracies

Why is this section included in the article? It cites no sources, and therefore looks like original research. This either needs some sourcing or it needs to be removed. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the sourcing from blogs and forums as it is not reliable sourcing. If the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory (as is the case with the deleted cites), then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary not all the sources are blogs and forums. They also include the Washington Post, NPR, The Morgan County Citizen, and an Arlington Institute report (hosted on Earthlink). Here are some other reliable books and articles about this: Conspiracy Culture (page 65 and 254)Conspiracy theories in American history(page 250)A Culture of Conspiracy (pages 34 and 73-4), Encyclopedia of millennialism and millennial movements (page 292), a long article in Popular Mechanics, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health. More could probably be found. In this case those blogs and forums are acceptable and useful as primary sources anyway; they're only being used to verify the details of a conspiracy theory, not for any independent facts. These conspiracy theories have received a fair amount of coverage from a number of sources, have been featured on national TV and in a popular movie, have prompted official rebuttals from FEMA, etc. I don't think it's undue weight to have a few sentences about them.Prezbo (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First, blogs and forums are very, very rarely (read, for-all-intents-and-purposes "never") acceptable as primary reliable sourcing. I think if you want to include a mention of this fringe theory in an article about conspiracy theories, that'd be OK. If you want to start an article about government conspiracy theories (assuming there isn't already one), and include this stuff there, that too would be OK. But, the sourcing for inclusion in here just doesn't measure up and isn't relevant to this article. So, better said, if the focus of an article is about the evidence of conspiracy theories and the conspiracy theorists, then the text can delve into those subjects. But, this article is about FEMA, so the focus should stay on FEMA and not on fringe theories about conspiracies involving FEMA. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories about conspiracies involving FEMA are an aspect of FEMA, they're part of how FEMA is viewed by the public. Mentioning them isn't taking the focus away from FEMA, it's covering an important part of FEMA's history and public image. What would be required for the sourcing to "measure up," a full-length book about FEMA conspiracy theories? What would this article look like if this standard for inclusion was applied consistently? I'm sure more has been written about FEMA conspiracy theories than has been written about this, for example (zero google news archive results, zero google scholar results, maybe 10 or 20 sentences about it on google books).Prezbo (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories about conspiracies involving FEMA are, well, fringe theories and have no place in Wikipedia. The passage about Mobile Emergency Resource Support is not controversial, so it doesn't require the same level of sourcing as does this collection of looney crackpot theories about FEMA. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Per WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are however relevant, if for no other reason than people hear about them and want to know more about them. "fema camps" is the number 3 google search including "fema," [[1]] and is included in different fringe documentaries, such as "The Obama Deception." This makes it relevant to the topic. Mainstream news outlets have mentioned the conspiracy theory as well, such as the Glenn Beck show [[2]], albeit to debunk it. I'd also like to point out that the vast majority of people don't believe the 9/11 truthers, but they're mentioned quite a bit on wikipedia. If for no other reason, it makes for fun reading. Also, WP:FRINGE clearly states "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." I would say Popular Mechanics and Fox News both qualify as "major publications" who both researched and debunked this conspiracy theory. Anton.hung (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I don't think it worthwhile to include a minor conspiracy theory just to debunk it. It's better to just not mention them at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is whether or not it's a "minor" conspiracy theory. I've heard quite a bit about it, seen news coverage of it, and seen protests (on the news) involving it. I do believe it definitely meets the guidelines of notable, however, I don't really know how the information should be presented as to not give it undue attention. Anton.hung (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of FEMA camps?

FEMA operates several camps where people can be held in case of emergencies. Why is there no mention of this in the article? --ScWizard (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no reliable sourcing for this kind of fringe theory. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fringe theory, it's all over YouTube, real as anything else. Of course, Wikipedia requires citations other than youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4 ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxYxTly-yo8), and that's the problem.

And, even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.

Umm, pass. Of course, we do have an article on the X-Files TV program for this kind of stuff. As you recognize, YouTube is not a reliable source. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But Alex Jones's video of camps is a source that may be used. Just because a video is from youtube does not mean that it can't be verified. --66.223.168.45 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit and FEMA head tables

Hello,

I have updated the article to reflect that Obama's choice to lead FEMA has been confirmed. I've also streamlined the FEMA head tables as well. I moved the guy in charge before 1979 to his own table. I have also merged the pre-2003 heads table with a note noting that after 1996 was the director cabinet-rank. The post-2003 Undersecretaries also held the title of FEMA Director as well; see Brownie, and Paulison. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Portal

Why is FEMA included as a Chicago-related article? Being a Federal agency, I would propose this be changed. Anton.hung (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to User:Anton.hung's question on his UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FEMA coffins and camps

There are numerous evidences on YouTube that FEMA has stockpiled empty coffins for humans accross the US (for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeqjykY5wPk). Also, empty FEMA camps accross the US are ready to "accept inmates" (also on YouTube). I think this info should be added to the article with proper citations.

Alex Jones, lol. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Too funny. These YouTube-fed conspiracy hacks crack me up. Once again folks, YouTube is not a reliable source. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, really? YouTube as a source for information... Wow. That's the last place I'd look for real information. By the way, anyone actually watch the video? Reminds me of moon landing conspiracy theorists and old uncle Ed who lives in a shack and claims to have been a top secret CIA sniper agent. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)