Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk[edit]

FYI: the FEMA logo will soon be retired. You can already see the new Department of Homeland Security logo on the FEMA website. SeanO 14:40, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

Are you guys aware that there appears to be a typo in two places at the start of article where it talks about porn??

Should there be a note on the role of FEMA in the conspiracy computer game Deus Ex? I don't think it's relevant, but it's an interesting tidbit of info nevertheless. -Ashmodai

I think FEMA's reputed role in various conspiracy theories is relevant, but it will be a _huge_ article if we list every single theory... :-) --SeanO 11:18, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Bias removed[edit]

I have removed this statement from the Response to Major Disasters section: 'Notice no mention of January 1993 - January 2001 disaster criticisms. FEMA under President Clinton was a cabinet level position and was often praised on how they used this power.' There were criticisms during this time (as noted later in the article) and it feels very political. DiegoTehMexican 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow goverment <---he ment Shadow Government[edit]

I read all the stuff that people have put in and pulled out about conspiracy theory. I added a small section under criticism of FEMA that I believe is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing conspiracy theories but regardless of if you think its true or not, FEMA's association with this conspiracy theory is certainly noteworthy. Many, MANY people around the world would never have heard of FEMA were is not for these theories. Therefore, taken at face value, some mention of the theories existence (WITHOUT presenting a bias) is an important thing. 150.101.184.29 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why? Apperently(apparently) it has the power to dissolve congress and take over all administration, could someone with a bit more clue on US law give more insight on this? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:03, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)


Well Ævar, I know a bit about this, so I guess ill answer your question. They can't dissolve congress, though congress can't review its actions for six months in a national emergency, but thats it. Like usual, a 2/3rds majority in the Senate can override any Executive Order, like the one that Truman tried to pass to nationalize all American steel mills and the one that Clinton tried to prevent corporations from using scabs to break strikes.

People say FEMA is set up to be a shadow government because it has powers that it inherited from various other agencies and offices before its formation that would allow it to take over some important aspects of the US government in a massive "National Emergency" that would threaten the collapse of the US government, thats the only instance where any of the powers would be used unless it was mission critical, like nationalizing an Airport temporarily, or relocating people from a contaminated area to a non-contaminated one. Now mind you the conspiracy buffs will say that they can do whatever they want whenever they want and will point out that "National Emergency" is only clearly defined in the War and Emergency Powers act of 1931. The part about the unlimited authority simply isn't true. In a non-affected area everything would operate as normal. It would just be in areas that are devastated enough to warrant use of those powers.

Anyway, here's a list of pretty much every executive order that pertains to FEMA:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned if contaminated beyond reasonable means of decontamination, and establish new locations for populations.

( note: from productiveinsomniac.... imagine this all goes into effect from riot's. police flood streets one by one. not all at once but one by one. it has been happening all ready. Ive seen old women beaten, tazed, and smoked with chem grenade's on the street. telling them to evacuate, this is an unlawful assembly except they where cornered from all exits basically boxed in! these where just test's imo! chem warfare would define contaminated beyond reasonable means!! weather it be tear gas, mustard gas, laughing gas. what ever it be. if you don't have a gas mask you are at risk, and could be transported at that time. i am not a nut. i fight bills against the constitution and bill of rights, our basic freedom is being took beneath our eyes. we dont have the freedom to choose what we can put in our body, we dont have the freedom to sell plants of nature, we dont have the freedom to travel without going through checkpoints, we have to buy permits, id's to basically do anything in this country! does anyone believe they should have the choice to try a substance for them self. like pot and see what its like or rather be told what it is like and told we cant have it but the government can put it in pills and transfer it in trucks and store it in buildings.

another hypocritical statement we will allow pot to be legal in 2 states but arrest the civilians in all other 48 states for even holding the substance.) EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

You may want to note that most of these EO's were written by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter before FEMA even existed. FEMA isnt a shadow government in the true sense of the word, though they do have some functionality as such with Continuity of Operations planning, but its really just a tool to get things consolidated and up and running again after a major catastrophe.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Scuzz138 23:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scuzz I hate to be just another conspiracy buff, but it seems like everything you said after introducing us [conspiracy theorists] supports what we have been saying all along. The executive orders obviously give FEMA sweeping powers over all aspects of our lives. You rightfully mention that FEMA would assume power in a "massive" national emergency that threatens the collapse of the U.S. government, but go on to say that FEMA powers would be local to the disaster. My point of contention is that in a massive national emergency that really threatens state power, it would be up to the state to decide which regions not to enact a FEMA police state in. If a national emergency is massive enough to be country wide, FEMA would have emergency powers for the whole country. You mention the ambiguity of the term national emergency: I'd like to point out that civil unrest and widespread revolt/revolution is one scenario that has gotten a lot of attention by the state, and FEMA has contengency plans to deal with such a scenario. This isn't so much of a conspiracy theory when looked at in the context of what a real "national emergency" scenario might look like in this day in age. We arn't talking about an isolated event like hurricane Katrina. How about large scale economic collapse coupled with radical political agitation? (IMHO) FEMA is not benevelont in any scenario, and it would be downright dangerous in this one.

What Scuzz138 so ignorantly attempts to belittle is the problem with having such power in relation to already preconstructed guidelines.

The "conspiracy theory" is that FEMA is planning on taking over. It isn't, and such a conspiracy theory has no evidence for it. However, pointless fallacies, like bringing up a ridiculous conspiracy theory to "debunk" any criticism of FEMA, as Scuzz138 has just tried to do, doesn't remove the problem.

The problem with FEMA?

The problem with FEMA is its idea of "disenters", of "threats" to the nation. It has lists of names to remove and/or arrest in the case of a supreme national emergency. Lists of people who are not a threat, no future threat can be seen in the case of an emegency, and if they wernt busy being arrested in the emegency, wouldn't be a threat. Their crimes? Oh, they were really vocal in their campaign to congress about ceasing the illegal torture of civilians. Or they were on a no-fly list because they were an actor in an "anti-american" movie.

It gets worse when they have already constructed and being constructed facilities to house prisoners. Facilities not built for refugees or survivors, but to act as concentration camps.

The problem is when an organisation is given the will, the means and the plan to cause great harm to things that are not and never will be a threat to the nation. Which is all they are allowed to prevent with such powers in relation to it.

Its certainly NOT ok that an organisation is already set to arrest innocent people, rather than save them, simply because some idiots decided its not a problem to remove such edicts and plans BEFORE they are allowed to use them.

Its like our nuclear targetting systems placing any nation that "we kind of dont like" as a target to wipe out in the case of a global nuclear war. Even if that nation is an ally, isnt a threat and had no part in the attack.

Sure, its not doing any "harm" to have it target now. No nukes are flying, its not a problem right?

No. But when those nukes fly, it becomes a problem. So you REMOVE it BEFORE that happens. 58.170.161.3 (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Fight the future![edit]

In Europe it is widely believed the President of US could cede all his powers to the FEMA in case of a big disaster (or a faked, conspiracy disaster) and then FEMA becomes the only executive, legilative and judicary authority in the USA. This means the Constituation is void as long as the FEMA is in power and e.g. if LA and SF are totally destroyed by a scale 8.5 earthquake they can e.g. force religious mid-west farmers to accept homeless refuge drug abuser gay couples in their houses without any kind of compensation.


And you got this information where? --Mrrightguy10 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another person espousing the supposed shadow government function of FEMA. The president does not have the power to cede his power to anybody other than the vice-president or Speaker of the House, as stated in the Constitution. --DiegoTehMexican 14:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA Individual Assistance[edit]

>>In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is unclear whether FEMA will provide government funds to rebuild destroyed homes in New Orleans

This is a little strong. FEMA is ruled by the Stafford Act, which does provide government funds to individuals. The Individual Assistance program provides for:

  • Limited housing repair funding (currently capped by law),
  • Temporary housing assistance (either indirect, such as rental assistance, or direct, such as loaning travel trailers or establishing trailer parks), and
  • and low-interest loans for individuals and businesses (through the Small Business Administration).

There is no duplication of benefits. If your insurance company pays to repair your house, you don't get money to repair your house from FEMA (but you are eligible for housing assistance and low-interest loans).

So, FEMA will provide government funds to rebuild. However, it will not be enough to get every family back on a pre-disaster footing. -- SeanO 22:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC).

FEMA < Homeland Sec causes problems[edit]

In the wake of Katrina, some have criticized that FEMA is less autonomous, and therefor less able to act in a crisis. Does this issue belong in Wikipedia? Does anybody know more and want to add it in a NPOV way? Smmurphy 01:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait to see if it pans out. FEMA has suffered from it's subjugation to DHS, but Secretary Chertoff has made it clear that Emergency Response and Recovery is FEMA's job. -- SeanO 03:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean "no coverage of contreversial subjects". It means, in this case, that balance be applied to the coverage of relevant facts, as long as they are noteable and sourced. So, if you have good references, go for it! --NightMonkey 09:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I came to this page specifically hoping to find some information on the controversy regarding whether FEMA has been rendered less-capable by the policies of the Bush administration. I'm not expecting to find partisan mud-slinging. But a nice NPOV characterization of the controversy, with relevant links, would be helpful. -- John Callender 22:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably has been, but without authoritative sourcing for that argument I don't think it belongs on the page. If someone can provide some sourcing, I will happily write something up. And the particular question of whether & how it has been rendered less effective in the specific response to Katrina isn't one that can really be answered yet. The situation isn't over and the enquiries haven't happened. It might be obvious that the DHS takeover had some effect (certainly feels that way to me) but right now it's simply not possible to state that as a sourced fact or opinion. Cromis 22:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a lot of articles in the mainstream media about whether putting FEMA under the DHS was a good thing to do. For instance, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html?sub=AR Of course, the Libertarians and various other limited-government types say the organizational details are irrelevant, since there doesn't seem to be any provision in the U.S. Constitution authorizing FEMA's activities. Thus, they say the whole thing should be abolished outright, and its functions carried out by either the states or the private sector (see http://www.jimbovard.com/American%20Spectator%20Sept%2096%20FEMA%20Money%20Come%20and%20Get%20It.htm ). 24.54.208.177 04:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with the 'limited government argument' is that we've seen that in this case, Local and State Government (and even the civilian Federal government) were incapable of handling the disaster at first. As far as disaster relief goes: you get what you pay for. DHS continues to affect the staffing and funding of FEMA. Michael Chertoff's Second Stage Review (which he proposed earlier this summer) will remove FEMA "Preparedness Division" to a newly formed ("Preparedness Directorate" of DHS). Dozens of skilled Emergency Managers will be siphoned off from FEMA to work a DHS mission which is more removed from State and Local government. In my opinion: FEMA succeeds when it works well with the State and Local government. It fails when it doesn't. [Disclaimer: I'm a FEMA Employee, but this is my opinion] --SeanO 01:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Article[edit]

I thought I'd just put this article here for someone to work with. I found it an interesting read, and think it's pretty much encapsulated most of the complaints about FEMA. Sadly, it was written almost a year ago. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-28/cover_story.html

i am a loser who doesnt know anything..... wiki isnt valid[edit]


I've verified some of this and added it to James Lee Witt; but some of that should be here too, and there's more to be said about the general politicisation issue. Rd232 08:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Neutrality?[edit]

I removed the NPOV note in the Criticisms section, as it does not contain anything that can be reasonably construed as controversial. It simply states some widely publicized criticisms and does not defend them. Subversive 07:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it back at the head of the article; this article has slowly deteriorated into a *real* mess. I'll try to put some time into cleaning it up this week, but I could use some help.
--24.129.168.240 21:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA Heads Succession Boxes[edit]

How should we handle succession boxes for FEMA heads? Do we include interim or acting FEMA Directors? My first inclination is no, but there are some cases (Magaw and Paulison) where they could be listed. -- SeanO 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Bush administration diatribe[edit]

I removed the following paragraph at the end of the Katrina section:

Bush took most of the criticism; however, two people to blame. First off many of the people could have been evacuated with city vehicles that are currently underwater. School buses could have been used to take people elsewhere, etc. This implies that the mayor of New Orleans was slacking off just blabbing on the news. He's full of it. Secondly, the governor of of Louisiana is to blame. Before FEMA is allowed to respond, they actually have to be asked to help. The governor was responsible to ask for help. In fact the governor delayed in asking for help and announced that she would wait one more day. The blame of course got directed to President Bush and Brown. Neither are to blame since the the local officials never did their job in the first place. The United States was designed to have a pyramid of officials, therefore, the top officials are not always to blame.

While some of the points may be salient, this paragraph is too biased and needs to be re-written to have a more neutral point of view. I suggest the original contributor figure out a way to re-word it to contain coherent and objective arguments. --Prothonotar 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even believe someone would be so ignorant of the encyclopedic goals of wikipedia and wikipedia's NPOV policy to insert such a diatribe into an article. I mean, usually when something is POV it's unwitting, but this person seems to think wikipedia is a political talk show.--Brentt 12:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Notice drive-by[edit]

A NPOV tag was added to this article recently. Howver, there's no mention here of what the specific problems are, or why the editor who placed the tag could not begin to fix the problems. It is considered bad form to just add a NPOV tag without substantive comment, let alone no comment at all. If there is no substantive statements made here about the whys, wheres and hows motivating the NPOV tag's addition, I'll remove the NPOV tag in about 72 hours. Thanks. --NightMonkey 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New sections and reorganization[edit]

I have reorganized and added portions to this article. I thought it was pretty fragmented and incomplete before, and given the NPOV tag, it needed some attention. There were some pretty POV comments in there that I removed, so in my humble opinon, its pretty NPOV so I removed the tag. I'm sure someone will disagree with my NPOV assertion, so please...fix it, don't just tag the page. I added a section regarding the history of FEMA to give a more complete background than what was there before. Random facts were strewn all over the page, so I have reorganized them in a way that makes sense. The "Response to major disasters" section I thought was signifigant enough to not combine with "Criticisms." I need to cite a few sources and I'll put some more pictures in later. I hope at least someone out there agrees with the choices I've made. Thanks. Govus 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work. Thanks! Eliot 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Civil Defense[edit]

The article says DOD took over Civil Defense but then it implied that it was part of FEMA. What is the relationship of FEMA and Civil Defense? --Gbleem 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA, as a result of Carter's 1979 Executive Order, IS responsible for Civil Defense. The function was transferred from DoD to FEMA, not the other way around. When I originally wrote that section, I accidentally switched those around, but have now corrected the error. Sorry about that, and thank you. Govus 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA in fiction[edit]

On an episode of The Boondocks, Huey had a line about FEMA being one of the top killers of black people. That would work well for the fiction section. -- LGagnon 06:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Court Order[edit]

I added a link to the EDLA court order regarding the deadline for FEMA to stop providing temporary housing assistance. The article as it stood before did not mention the litigation or the order, and merely said that FEMA had set a 2/7/06 deadline, while in fact that deadline was a result of the litigation.

I'm not trying to be POV about this issue, I just think people deserve to know the accurate facts of what happened.

RudolfRadna 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did it start[edit]

After some research I have been unable to find out when FEMA started. Did it start with the congressional act of 1803 or was it a consolidation of other federal response groups? I know it was around in 1906.

if some one could tell me that would be great, thanks

President Carter created FEMA from various Civil Defense agencies in 1980. -- SeanO 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that person was a few decades off.

So...[edit]

...who'se got the old FEMA logo now? Mind uploading it for comparison, since the current one is tagged "new", it kindof suggests there should be the old one there for comparison... 68.39.174.238

It used to be up on the site. -- SeanO 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless politicizing[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the article, because it's obviously anti-FEMA and has no place in the article. It's definitely nowhere near NPOV:

"While most American's believe that $100 billion has been spent on hurricane recovery along the Gulf Coast, the actual number spent on the ground is much less because of the lack of accountability within FEMA. They have spent over $10 billion on themselves, for things like housing, rental cars, and office supplies. In comparison, only $8 billion has been spent on the housing needs of the nearly 400,000 people displaced from their homes. In addition, untold billions have been wasted in inefficient, no-bid contracts and widespread fraud in the individual assistance program. Yet, most American's continue to believe that it is the victims that are too corrupt and inefficient to be trusted with recovery funds." -- BHammond1 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, that screed has no place anywhere around here. 68.39.174.238 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theory section[edit]

as it is right now, i've written every word in that section. obviously i am one who thinks that such a section ought to exist (although i thought it was more appropriate under the critism section, since this is more straight up fact than conjecture), and i encourage more people to follow some of the links provided around to see what they think. what i would hate to see would be for it to be arbitraily deleated. what do you all think?

skeet

Executive Orders[edit]

I'm going through all the Exec. Orders mentioned in the Conspiracy Theory section. Many of the ones I've gone through are from the depths of the Cold War (Kennedy Administration) and do not mention FEMA. I'm removing those which do not appear to be tangentially related to FEMA. --SeanO 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am going through some of the e.o.'s as well, and here is a typical example of what i have found: for executive order 10995, the one relating to control of communications media, the language of the order makes clear the obvious, that in a very confusing way (at least to me when presented in this form of legal-speak) the government has their hands all over communications. but it is vague, and does not mention fema. here is the language for the bill if you want to follow along: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm

section 4 reads as follows: SEC. 4. The functions and responsibilities vested in the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning by Executive Order No. 10705 of April 17, 1957, as amended, may be redelegated to the Director of Telecommunications Management Executive Orders No. 10695A of January 16, 1957, and No. 10705, as amended are hereby further amended insofar as they are with the present order. Executive Order No. 10460 of June 16, 1953, is hereby revoked.

instead of trying to figure out what the hell that meant, i focues on the first part, where it mentioned the "responsibilities vested in the director of the office of emergency planning by e.o. 10705," since that seemed likely to lead in the direction of FEMA. so i look that one up, and it's brief description is "Delegations of Certain Authority of the President Relating to Radio Stations and Communications," and it was revoked by e.o. 12046. e.o. 12046 description is "relating to the transfer of tele. com functions" and is amended by e.o. 12148 and 12472.

and here is where it all ties in. from starting at e.o. 10995 i ended up at e.o. 12148, whose description is simply federal emergency management (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1979.html#12148) and e.o. 12472, whose description is "assignment of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications functions." (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1984.html#12472)

while both e.o.'s have been further amended, it seems clear to me that fema and other national security agencies have some control over communications media. the extent of their control is not clear, however, and probably wouldn't be to anyone not well versed in this beurocratic/legal document type language. indeed, it warrents further investigation, and i will continue down this particular path at some other time. my guess is that each one of those e.o.'s mentioned has gone through a similar evolution. until someone puts the time into it, i agree that the section could not stand as it was.

skeet

Skeet, thanks for your comment. My problem with the section as written is it tars FEMA with Presidential Executive Orders made 20 years before FEMA existed. I think it's clear that the FCC has some control over the communications media (above and beyond the EO cited) I just don't think an Executive Order signed during the Kennedy Administration is particularly relevant to the FEMA operating today. --SeanO 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section under WP:UCS, and more to come(?)[edit]

I was WP:BOLD and used the essay "UCS" to removed the section going off about "FEMA concentration camps". Briefly:

  • Such claims are standard conspiracy claims
  • Such claims would require enourmous directly related, reputable sourcing. This articel used something reading strongly of original research based on questionable sources.
  • Such claims are suspiscious sounding on the surface.

That entire section seems a little like something Lightbringer might dump into Freemasonry. I can understand the need for mentioning the conspiracy thories surrounding it, but that does't mean we need to mention an actual conspiracy theory. Maybe toning it down to something like "In a declared emergency, FEMA could call on a wide range of emergency powers, such as [...] [...]. This fact has been noted by many conspiracy theories" ? 68.39.174.238 04:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories[edit]

Re:FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Please look up "FEMA Camp footage" on Google Video. Who are these camps for? Are they for American citizens? Is this not shocking and news worthy? Just what was so good about the Nazi concentration camps that FEMA feel the need to replicate them in America? These are serious questions and we scorned the German people for not asking such questions during the Nazi rise to power. What is FEMA's vision?--Showmethedata 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google video, if anything like YouTube, is very likely NOT a reliable source. Something like the NYT, Ch. Tribune, heck even the Arizona Republic would be reputable. I know I'm not alone in wanting to ensure that controversial pages like this don't get flooded with hoaxes, utter nonsense and worse screeds. 68.39.174.238 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is really something sinister about these camps, then more serious investigation is needed. We just need more information or no one will take such theories seriously... because there's currently no way of knowing that there isn't some harmless reason for these camps. Grayfox777 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any reason why the first paragraph in the section was deleted? it read: "FEMA's annual budget is partially secretive. While it remains unknown what some parts of FEMA's 6.4 billion dollar budget (1) will be spent on (2), forced government disclosures of FEMA's past activities paints a revealing picture. Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a secret exercise to test governmental response to foreign or domestic disturbances that threatened the continuity of the State. Rex 84 and other tests like it demonstrate that FEMA's role extends far beyond responses to natural disasters or foreign/domestic terrorist attacks, and into the area of policing and undermining popular movements in which governmental authority is threatened. A July 5th, 1987 Miami Herald front page article is credited with bringing some of these secret activities into the open, at least amongst the mainstream media."

nothing in there was origional research. i know because i wrote the section. if you'd take the time to read the miami herald article you'd see much stronger accusations leveled against the agency than i ever put down. rex 84 speaks for itself, as does the need for a secret budget for an agency most assume is only around to help out in times of natural disaster. i'd like to keep that section up until you can provide a reason it shouldn't be.

as for the rest of the piece, when i wrote it it was under the criticism section, as a lot of it is easily verifiable. however, the EO's that were listed turned out to be outdated, were deleated, and someone must have put them up again after that. i traced the evolution of two of the EO's and figured out they exist in the same capacity they were origionally described in, with the addition of 30 years of legal speak thrown into the mix. still, not good enough to be in this article, i agree.

the last paragraph is questionable as well, but i'd like to put forth that if we accept rex 84 as fact, why is it beyond our role here on wikipedia to take that fact to its logical conclusion? the detention camps mentioned in the linked-to webpage are not beyond verification - for instance, camp krome in florida is infamous as the current location of detainment for american citizen jose padilla, an alleged terrorist who has been denied habeas corpus and for three years was held as an "unlawful enemy combatent" with no charges filed against him. it was also the site of temproary detention for over 1,000 arab men following the 9/11 attacks, as reported by the new york times. perhaps there is no place in wikipedia for this sort of piece, but i really don't think it's a stretch by any account - it's [illegal detention] been done to american citizens before, there are well known contengency plans for it to be done (on a large scale) again if need be, we have a general idea of the role fema, the military, and other agencies would play in this situation, but we arn't supposed to mention the connections because there isn't enough evidence??

I have reworked some of the conspiracy section and re-titled it. While it seems that this topic deserves a place in this article, much of the material citied in the previous version is derived from sources whose credibility is arguable. For example, the Miami Herald article linked to in the previous version is unsuitable for use, as it is a reproduction of the article on a personal blog. An (admittedly simple) Google search turned up no suitable alternative. Thus, that section was removed. Much of the wording in the previous version was also POV, in my opinion. Additions to this section should be thought about with care. As mentioned at the top of this page, listing every conspiracy theory would create a huge article. I hope to get some comments on this issue...Govus 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think it was at all necessary to remove the mentioning of the miami herald article, for multiple reasons. although it is indeed quite hard to find a hard copy of the article without paying for it, you can get multiple hits on google by searching the journalist's name (alfonso chardy) and fema in the same search. every site that actually has the full report shows identical versions of the full report. and most convincingly of all in regards to the article's credibility was the video link of jack brooks citing it in a congressional hearing where he is questioning oliver north about his involvement in certain secret exercises. i think that the video is crucial for this section, as it presents these "conspiracies" in the light of actual government proceedings.
also, your insinuation that rex 84 refers to an alleged event, or that fema's involvement in it is disputed, doesn't represent the facts of the matter.
I certainly don't know much of anything about Rex 84, so if calling it an alleged event is out of line, I certainly won't object to any modification on that point. It was difficult to determine the exact nature of the program from the linked article. I removed the mention of the Jack Brooks video purely for aesthetic reasons: I could not make it fit will into the prose of the section; so again, I have no objection to reinserting it. As for the Miami Herald article, I really do think the source should be something other than a reproduction of the article on someone's blog. But since it seems necessary to explain the video, I think an appropriate solution may be to link to the article, but mention that the original article could not be found, just as sort of a disclaimer. I'll leave these changes up to you or someone else to make, since I've already put my two cents in. :) Govus 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you did do a good job editing the overall tone of the section, by the way. i will do my best to fit any corrections into the framework you've provided, but i can't get to it for a few days at least.

Buffalo Snowstorm[edit]

Is this really a major disaster? -- KB3JUV

according to FEMA who reccomended it and the president who signed a Major Disaster Declaration, yes. 160.39.113.158 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) prosped[reply]


Who is comparing this snowstorm to hurricane Katrina??? This section is unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.161.1 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

answer this question please[edit]

why is FEMA sluggish? is it due to government restrictions or what? Pikasneez27 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to think you're being ignored, it's just that broad questions like this aren't really the scope of Wikipedia talk pages. Maybe there's a forum on another website you could post your question. On the other hand, this is a common comment so perhaps the article should address this view and do a better job of communicating changes that FEMA officials say have been made or are underway. -- Pesco 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old seal images[edit]

There are two images available of the old seal. Neither is ideal, but I think the .jpg is better looking than the .gif on my monitor. Can someone make a .svg? ~ BigrTex 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • jpg
    jpg
  • gif
    gif
Yes, GIFs scale horribly in most cases, so the .jpg (or a .png version) would be better. I uploaded a separate SVG version though and switched to that. Carl Lindberg 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Move to FEMA?[edit]

Noone calls it the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it's always FEMA, which is why the article should be named FEMA like NATO, OPEC, etc. --Joffeloff 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal Yahel Guhan 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But NATO and OPEC (NASA comes to mind, too) are well-known internationally because of their international impact. Since FEMA is a purely domestic U.S. agency, I'm not sure the acronym as a title is reasonable for a global encyclopedia. Have they achieved global renown (or infamy) under this moniker yet? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of MSNBC reference[edit]

I have removed the reference to MSNBC in the California 2007 wildfires paragraph. The citation at the end of the paragraph is in part for video evidence that Fox News aired the staged press briefing live. Until someone provides a video link (like the one I did for Fox News) or a link to an article indicating that the fake press conference was aired live on MSNBC, I will keep the MSNBC reference deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconwings1982 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Fox News reference relevant? To me it seems to imply that Fox News is stupid/biased enough to air a fake news conference live. This may be true, but this isn't a Fox News article. I would suggest that the reference be deleted. It doesn't really add anything to the blurb except that Fox News are a bunch of morons who air anything that would put the Bush administration in a positive light. Mnpeter 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since source [15] mentions "MSNBC and other sources", it doesn't seem fair to only mention FOX simply because their footage was used. The article, in it's present state, implies that only FOX aired it. (Mike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.87.22 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I simply overlooked that fact. Do, however, name all broadcast stations that did air the fake press briefing. The video itself had the Fox News broadcast. See if you, or anyone reading this, can provide a video link for this article-Falconwings1982 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.43.229 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"FEMA in fiction"[edit]

Necessary? It seems pretty pointless (and probably incomplete) as well. NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A line needs editing?[edit]

"The telephone number to receive disaster assistance from FEMA is 1-800-621-3362. Survivors of Katrina can learn more about FEMA assistance, and get forms for FEMA recertification, at a wiki web site FEMAanswers.org."

This reads too much like a promotion and not factual at that. There was a telephone number set up for relief, etc then citation would work... but this seems too promotional.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. -- Beland (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret location[edit]

Someone more vested in this article should can this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.212.46 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


FEMA predicting 3 likeliest disasters facing the USA[edit]

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)[reply]

National Disaster Medical System[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

Response to major disasters section needs major cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

Hurricane Gustav 2008[edit]

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)[reply]

Conspiracies[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I may as well ask why this section is NOT included. It may surprise you, but as a person from outside the USA I have only known about the very existence of FEMA from those fringe conspiracy theory. And somehow I think that a significant part of non-Americans come to this article after watching/reading some stuff about camps, coffins and so on. So I was surprised not to see any mentions of this in the article. RlyechDweller (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I came to read a neutral POV on the supposed FEMA camps, and there's no mention in the entire article? It doesn't matter whether it's true or false, I think it's widespread enough to be included in the FEMA article. --Galaxiaad (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised at all. Censorship goes throughout the history of the U.S. and we all know since 9/11 that the situation is severe in the States. By the way FEMA was usually designed to protect the elite - not the normal people - from catastrophies, and this includes secret hide-outs for thousands of rich people and concentration camps in case of incurable deseases. However, what would you do, if you are the president of the U.S. in case of an outbreak? Let everybody die or save at least the people who financed your ass? Many people are just very naive by thinking that the governments have the same intentions or goals than a normal citizen of a state has. It's not like that. Over and out. 178.197.233.127 (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, NPOV in this case would be just not mentioning it at all here since they are in no way relevant to what FEMA actually is. I'm sure Wikipedia has plenty of articles about mass hysteria or about some famous people with delusional disorders where this information will appear. The guy who introduced the idea of reptilian aliens masquerading as humans to popular culture has his own article, with huge sections of it dedicated to documenting his hallucinations and ramblings. Thehumandignity (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of FEMA camps?[edit]

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)[reply]

Because there is no reliable sourcing for this kind of fringe theory. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It can not be verified, which is why it has not been verified. Jones is a crackpot. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell from here that these "FEMA Camps" theories may be a total hoax. --167.93.53.169 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised that all of this has been so easily swept under the rug. What about all of the sources in this article? There's plenty of verifiable information out there. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7763 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.248.35 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't verifiable, the Federal Government are working as hard as they can to keep the Extermination Camps undercover. Get the hell out of America while the borders are still open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.74.221 (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA is so galactically incompetent that they can't handle an actual emergency, and yet somehow they'd be able to manage a mass roundup and detention of American citizens during said emergency? Seems legit. 63.140.69.162 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the supposed executive orders by Obama re FEMA camps may actually be by JFK and taken wildly out of context. EO11000 a popular one for example: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58938#axzz2ha6821V7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

90% of the FEMA camps were made Between 2008 and 2015

Recent edit and FEMA head tables[edit]

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)[reply]

Chicago Portal[edit]

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)[reply]

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

FEMA coffins and camps[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I do not understand how you think that underground media does not constitute a source! If it can be verified as to who reported and what was reported, then it is a legitimate source. AP and Reuters are not the only fracking journalists sources! You all need to chill and not be so genocidal.
Quite simply, the underground media have no fact checking process, no reputation, and give no reason to expect us to believe they're telling the truth. Anything that does any or all of those three is simply called "the media". Sceptre (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Postulated implementations alludes to this odd cultural phenomenon; perhaps a link would be in order. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, wow. I love how the FEMA sockpuppets on this talkpage seem to actually, genuinely attempt to dismiss massive, fenced off, built camps as somehow some "fan made cardboard cut-out on Youtube". Strange, I wasn't aware random Youtubers had such resources and manpower available to them. *facepalm* 124.150.32.214 (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

No. Wikipedia says Verifiability, not Truth is the criterion for inclusion. The video fails WP:V's requirements. That is the end of the story, and I am going to kindly ask you to accept the decision. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that FEMA has a detention camp in downtown Detroit? 99.148.195.158 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) NO. Nuff said.167.93.253.64 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


why would an Agency dedicated to dealing with massive natural disasters NOT have a stockpile of coffins? why should they NOT have arrangements in place for housing refugees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.49.0 (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The camps and coffins is not the problem. The very insitent manner of the moderator (QueenOfBattle?) that they not be mentioned at all is, how ever, as this feeds into the conspiracy narrative.83.249.179.117 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely support excluding it. There's no evidence that it's notable beyond Alex Jones types. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Falkenrath References[edit]

All the quotes using the Falkenrath article are not informative as to the history of FEMA, but are instead a means of sneaking in an anti-FEMA stance into the historical sections of this article. All references to the Falkenrath peice should either be deleted or moved to a section dealing with reasons against FEMA's existence. Falkenrath, Richard S., "Problems of Preparedness: U.S. Readiness for a Domestic Terrorist Attack" (2001)International Security, Boston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.197.62 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Attacks + American Somoa Tsunami Criticism[edit]

I fail to see any criticism in the 9/11 Attacks and Ameran Samoa Tsunami subsections. They are merely summaries of how FEMA was involved, and should therefore be removed.--134.107.13.183 (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Favonian (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Emergency Management Agency → FEMA – Common name. Similar to NATO, or DARPA. Marcus Qwertyus 10:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. FEMA is not a name at all; it's only an abbreviation, which are discouraged as article titles except in the rarest cases. Even the FBI and CIA are at their full common names (and I'd move DARPA back to its original full title too). FEMA is fine as a redirect. Station1 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NATO is specifically allowed in that policy and the full name of DARPA is even less common. Marcus Qwertyus 03:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're saying DARPA is almost exclusively used in reliable sources without being spelled out[3][4][5][6], or is understood by most of the English-speaking world without explanation, I disagree. Same for FEMA[7][8][9][10][11]. Abbreviations should be used as titles only when "the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation". That might apply to NATO, but it's rare. Station1 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I don't think this quite rises to the level of NATO and DARPA. FEMA is usually written out in full in news articles before switching to the acronym; NATO is usually not. (DARPA sometimes is and sometimes isn't.) Powers T 13:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other translations[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SECTION CENSORED FOR YOUR SAFETY.[edit]

When googling FEMA we can clearly see "SECTION CENSORED FOR YOUR SAFETY." appear on the page preview.

Any idea why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.242.80 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was vandalized yesterday, and the Google cache hasn't caught up with the new version yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA "Camps" Sources[edit]

I'd also like to see mention of the FEMA camps in the article. I think they should be included as they are at least a "significant minority view." I've done some digging and found quite a few sources.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/halliburton-concentration-camps-already-constructed/1831/

The link to the actual original source on Halliburton's website has been deleted (as would be expected). However, the secondary source provides a copy of the original source. Secondary and primary sources are "worthy." Furthermore, I'd think Halliburton would sue them or lodge a libel charge against them if it weren't true.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr645/text

Plenty more sources can be found using "HR645" as a search term.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/articles/the-partisan/partisan-number-24/153-immigrants-used-to-justify-police-state-program

(you can find more sources from here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84 "Rex 84 was written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both National Security Council White House Aide, and NSC liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of "national preparedness" programs for the FEMA."

Of note (goes to "cultural precedence"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Tent_City

(scroll down a bit before you dismiss as a conspiracy theory - this is well-written, and verifiable) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60684/pg1

(reputable local newspaper debunking the "coffins" theory, not sure if that should be included or not) http://www.morgancountycitizen.com/?q=node/7524

Note, the following sources can be used for purposes of further research - not direct citation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12078.htm

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm

The locations of the camps and these "unverifiable" comprehensive lists of them don't need to be included in the section of the article if they indeed can't be verified.

BriEnBest (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA and Sandy[edit]

The article needs to be up-dated to cover FEMA's response to Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy.Kdammers (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive editing: FEMA headed by man who'd died 20 years prior[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._McConnell (July 1, 1877 – November 6, 1963) This article has him heading FEMA during the 1980s. Article not suitable for assessment. 124.170.40.242 (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't wrong – it was just linking to the wrong John W. McConnell. It's fixed now. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA Corps[edit]

No mention of this new division? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regions links 404 / broken[edit]

Several of the FEMA regions maps external links (V, VII, VIII) appear broken. Add new/updated links from http://www.fema.gov/regional-operations ?

Dredmorbius (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of fluff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia[edit]

"More information is available on the FEMA website under the "Emergency Personnel" and "Training" subheadings. Other emergency response information for citizens is also available at its website."

"EMI offers credentials and training opportunities for United States Citizens. Note that students do not have to be employed by FEMA or be a federal employee for some of the programs."

This is an encyclopaedic article about the organization, not a pamphlet handed out to the public... 86.181.164.135 (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I cleaned up the EMI section a few weeks ago. The remaining (mere) 2 sentences and a hat note directing people to the EMI article is entirely appropriate. Take a look at the history and se where it was before. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Federal Emergency Management Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV template[edit]

@Igotrekt: This article now contains a {{POV}} template, but there is not much recent discussion on this talk page about current "neutrality" issues. Why did you add the template to this article? Jarble (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed it. It can be restored if ever supported. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Federal Emergency Management Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Federal Emergency Management Agency. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the 1930s[edit]

The last sentence of this paragraph is slightly opinionated without a source.Rmurph96 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piecemeal Approaches[edit]

Needs a citation.Rmurph96 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA under Department of Homeland Security (2003–present)[edit]

Opening paragraph needs sources.Rmurph96 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links and Validity[edit]

The article overall seams to be unbiased in information. However, that information is less than reliable. Many of the links included in the article "do not work". Additionally, there are sections of the article that contradict itself. For example, on the bottom of the page, in one of the tables, Nancy L. Ward is listed as the acting agency admin (as well as Robert Fenton). Despite this it lists her time served as Jan -2009 to May-2009. Additionally, I believe the page contains links to many loosely related articles, that are not of importance. For example there is a link to an article about a family trying to get back on its feet. Overall there is a lot of good and true informat/ion, but it needs updated sources. Trialbyfire911 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)trialbyfire911[reply]

Problems with article[edit]

The first sentence in the article should not be there. There was some direct plagiarism in the article. There is some cleaning up that is need on the acting head as to people are labeled as such. Info in the article is very much outdated as their has been disasters since 2007. Their are statements in Hurricane Katrina that needs citation. When talking about the what the committee stated in there report the citation link is broken. This is repeated during the snowstorm of 2006 that the citation link does not lead to an articleUriahdavis (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation[edit]

Not all facts are cited correctly. The article does have a lot of fluff in the beginning it makes it easy to get sidetracked from getting a grasp on what FEMA really is and their mission statement. The information does seem to be neutral. The citations that I checked worked correctly. Sullybug (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency/Archive_1&oldid=1136722247"