Talk:Carol Browner/Archives/2013

Old post

"Politician" may not be the appropriate stub for her, but I can't figure out what's better. icydid 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this unbiased?

This is obviously a rant. It maintains no encyclopeidic distance. There were no citations. I think this should be re-writen by someone who knows more than I do about Carol Browner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.20.187 (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I concur. It is a political commercial for Browner. From memory, I recall there were charges against Browner when she was EPA Director of suppressing research reports that did not support the administration's beliefs about global warming and ordering the shredding of such reports.

She is also a lawyer by training and her appointment as as EPA director was critized for her lack of scientific credentials. 63.194.82.138 (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

EPA discrimination material

User:Keepcalmandcarryon has completely removed this material on the EPA discrimination case during Browner's time as administrator, with the edit summary "Problematic edits levels uncomfortable charges of racism or complicity therein; edits seem to stretch or selectively interpret sources to the point I am concerned about WP:BLP". This material was added by me, after I removed the much larger amount of material on the subject added by User:Magnor1.

I think both these editors have gone overboard in their actions, in opposite directions. Magnor1's contribution was quite slanted and constituted massive WP:Undue weight. On the other hand, Keepcalmandcarryon's dispatching of this material to the memory hole doesn't seem justified either. And I disagree that what I wrote selectively interprets the sources given; I think it accurately reflected them. That's not to say I was completely happy with it. The sources were from top-level media outlets (Time and two different Washington Post stories) but there wasn't anything from WP:RS beyond that that I could find, which is disturbing. Moreover, the Time story seemed a bit on the strident side, and I'm leery of relying on it too much. And I've looked a good deal but haven't found anything that presents Browner's side or the EPA's side directly (the 4 October 2000 congressional hearings on this don't seem to be online anywhere). So, I could see that failing to find sources for Browner's side, we need to remove the Coleman-Adebayo "She wasn't at all sympathetic to complaints ..." quote, which is rather inflammatory. And perhaps make other changes. But I can't see that we can pretend that this whole episode never happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Coleman-Adebayo v. Browner is a matter of public record. The jury award is a matter of public record. The finding that then-administrator Carol Browner maintained a hostile work environment is part of the public record. The foregoing 3 points at the very least are worth noting as part of Ms. Browner's public tenure. This is even more important now that she has been selected as the "Energy Czar" by President-elect Obama. The following information was removed from the EPA part of the wiki post I did not make:

"During Browner's tenure, there were many reports from African American employees of racism directed at them from a network of "good old boys" who dominated the agency's middle management layers.[16] The most known of these involved policy specialist Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, who in 1997 filed suit against the agency; in 2000 the EPA was found guilty of discrimination against her and she was awarded $300,000.[16][17] Coleman-Adebayo said that Browner allowed the problems to persist rather than trying to clean them up: "She wasn't at all sympathetic to complaints about civil rights abuses. We were treated like Negroes, to use a polite term. We were put in our place."[16] In an October 2000 Congressional hearing on the matter,[18] Browner appeared near tears as she said minorities had tripled in the agency's senior ranks during her time as administrator, but she was unable to explain why the culprits in Coleman-Adebayo's case had not been dismissed and in some cases had been promoted.[16] A month earlier, Browner had asked for the Office of the Inspector General to linvestigate a statement by an African American environmental specialist that she had been ordered to clean a toilet in 1993 in advance of Browner's arrival at an EPA event.[19] This followed a rally in which dozens of EPA employees protested what they saw as rampant bias at the agency.[19] Congressional dissatisfaction with the EPA situation and its treatment of Coleman-Adebayo led to passage of the No-FEAR Act in 2002, which discourages federal managers and supervisors from engaging in unlawful discrimination and retaliation.[17]"

I felt this was better presented than my original posting, and cited legitimate news outlets. I would like to see the preceding paragraph reincorporated into the Carol Browner wiki page, complete with annotations. I have no idea how to do it, but would welcome anyone with the requisite chops to take a stab at presenting objective documentation about Ms. Browner's public record rather than expunge information that may be embarrassing to Ms. Browner, the Obama team, or both.Magnor1 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me to including the case. It should certainly be presented, but in a neutral manner and without unencyclopaedic details (e.g., the IMO sexist part about Browner being near tears). My apologies to both of you if I confused your respective contributions. I find this whole case rather interesting, and in particular the involvement of members of a certain US political party who seem suddenly to be quite concerned about racial discrimination when it comes to an agency they disagree with! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I put the 'near tears' bit in because it was the only thing I could find that conveyed some of Browner's side of things, i.e. that she was genuinely upset that discrimination had taken place within the agency and that at the upper ranks that she had more direct control over, the story had been quite different. I don't see its inclusion as sexist; a male EPA administrator could also be reduced to near tears by this kind of thing happening on their watch. As for your stricken comment, I too am a bit leery of the Congressional investigation that was held and possibly even of the No-Fear Act; I don't know whether they were honestly motivated or something created to embarrass the Clinton administration and the Democrats or (quite possibly) some combination of both. I do know that Christie Whitman dropped the EPA's appeal of the Coleman-Adebayo verdict as soon as she got into office (see this letter here, which I was going to add to the article before the whole subject got wiped), which I believe Whitman did because she believed it the right course of action and not for partisan purposes. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would either of you know how to repost the Coleman-Adebayo v Browner portion of the Carol Browner EPA story? I'm too fiery and I don't know how nor have I the time to learn code. I'd even give toning it down to encyclopedic a shot, but I still don't know the code or protocols. In my estimation, there is considerable opinion that has been widely expressed that the entire Coleman-Adebayo v Browner episode deeply embarrassed the Agency and disgraced Ms. Browner. THAT's the part of the story that seems prescient today. With the pressures whistleblowers face, does the Browner announcement as "Energy Czar" send a chilling message to others who know the history of retaliation within the Federal bureaucracy?Magnor1 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the biography of Browner's time as EPA Administrator should be what it is, regardless of what she does later. It doesn't matter if she becomes climate czar or takes up golf full-time, either way, the description of her time as EPA stays the same. Your concern of what is "prescient today" is irrelevant. As for restoring any description of the Coleman-Adebayo matter, the onus is on Keepcalmandcarryon. He/she deleted every single word of what I wrote before. So obviously, nothing I wrote is good enough for him/her. I did a lot of work expanding all aspects of this article recently, but I'm not going to get into an endless edit cycle/war on this issue. Since Keepcalmandcarryon claims to know what is best here, let him/her do it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If this were a page on O.J. Simpson and the legal history only included his recent trial and conviction, the whole "trial of the Century" that took place a decade ago would be irrelevant? Coleman-Adebayo v Browner has been widely recognized as a stain on Browner's and the Agency's records. As in disgrace. Ms. Browner tolerated a hostile work environment inside the EPA. Somehow, it seems that Keepcalmandcarryon finds your work, Wasted Time R, unacceptable as "sexist" but has no problem with "She kicks the door open, throws in a hand grenade, and then walks in to shoot who's left. She really doesn't like to compromise. [But she] has done a pretty good job down here. People have more complaints with the way she does it than what she does," that appears in the 'Earlier career' section. Cowboy flamboyance is quite alright, but reference to a public trial where a jury of her peers awarded Coleman-Adebayo a hefty judgement because of the race, sex, and color based discrimination is not? This raises the question of why the colorful description of Browner in Florida is tolerated.

There were fervent protests against EPA discrimination during Browner's tenure as administrator, by EPA employees who put themselves at considerable risk by doing so. To say that Browner's later appointment as Energy Czar is irrelevant is baffling. Of course a previous judgement in court that an administrator discriminated against an employee is relevant when that administrator is chosen for another administrative position where the same discrimination could be practiced. The swinging door of politicians who have demonstrated hostility and discrimination toward their underlings, who lose in court when charged with these offenses, and who are then given new oversight positions raises the question of how to inform the public that it is not being served (by media that largely ignore or are unaware of the significance of Coleman-Adebayo v Browner). The pervasive story in the media is that Browner is the "obvious choice" for Energy Czar (as reported in the Washington Post), when her court record would indicate that she is anything but. The charges of rampant discrimination and retaliation inside the EPA were upheld not only by the jury in Coleman-Adebayo v Browner, but were upheld by unanimous votes in both houses of the Congress. This was not a partisan fight by one party. That study of Coleman-Adebayo v Browner is now mandated--by law-- for all Federal employees is irrefutable. It is part of the No FEAR Act. Carol Browner cannot be divorced from her role in the conditions that prevailed inside EPA at the time that the No FEAR Act was passed. The struggle by Federal employees to establish a workplace that is free of retaliation and discrimination against whistleblowers continues. Carol Browner cannot point to one reprimand that she carried out against those who implemented the discrimination against Coleman-Adebayo. Maybe that doesn't fit neatly into some encyclopedic formula, but entrenched racism, retaliation, and discrimination are real within the Federal bureaucracy. The people inside who watched the courage displayed by Coleman-Adebayo cannot be heartened to know that Carol Browner is now on the threshold of being back in a position of authority. If the only information about her tenure at EPA is the glowing reports of all she accomplished successfully, then wikipedia is providing a disservice.Magnor1 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rants and hyperbole are not going to help your cause here. If you can find additional, mainstream newspaper or magazine or book sources that will shed additional light on the EPA, the racism claims, Browner's actions, and the court case in this matter, that would help. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never claimed "to know what is best here". I found a paragraph at the Coleman-Adebayo article to approach, in my no doubt imperfect editorial opinion, a violation of WP:BLP and NPOV. Perhaps I was wrong. I was bold and deleted the paragraph in question, especially since I did not feel it was directly relevant to Marsha Coleman-Adebayo. The paragraph had been added by Magnor1, who copied it from this article. I screwed up and assumed wrongly that Magnor1 (who both from the comments above and on the basis of his or her edits has a fairly "fiery" POV on the matter) had also added the paragraph to this article. I apologised above for my attribution mistake. Also above, I gave my critique of the tone of the paragraph and wrote, "No objections from me to including the case. It should certainly be presented, but in a neutral manner and without unencyclopaedic details". I'm baffled by WTR's strongly negative comments about me, but I realise things can get heated when there's a perceived slight. I assure you, WTR, none was intended, and I apologise if I was too hasty with my revert. We can work on tweaking the language together, and I won't stand in the way of restoring the paragraph.

OK, maybe I overreacted in my comments. Nevertheless, I'm not going to play a guessing game with what you think is neutral, BLP-allowable, and encyclopedic on this. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but the Pottery Barn rule applies: you break it, you buy the job of putting it back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

On another issue, I saw the following from an IP editor as I was writing my comment. Adding the full text of resources to the talk page is inappropriate, and I'm not sure what the point is, anyway. Simple links would suffice. Please, everyone, let's keep the emotions in check and have a civil, concise discussion of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've yanked the full texts. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, I don't at all wish to be difficult, but your tone is and has been of concern, and I have no obligation whatsoever to put anything back in. The "Pottery Barn rule" is not a Wikipedia policy. As I said earlier, I won't stand in your way, whatever you choose to do. I'm taking this article off my watchlist. Good luck, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back over the whole sequence, Keepcalmandcarryon is right that my tone has been unnecessarily antagonistic. I've apologized on his/her talk page. I'll leave this article alone for a while, someone else can sort this all out ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now returned to the article, but nothing further happened on this front. I've added a reduced version of the previous material I wrote on this, leaving out some of the more inflammatory touches that apparently raised the BLP concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, another stupid Revert War

Can we just stop the stupidity now?

Look people, she is a card carrying Socialist. You can use this little tool we like to call Google to confirm it. For those of you who don't know, you get on this thing called the internets, and you go to www.google.com. Once there you type in "Carol M. Browner socialist" and hit the search button.

When you see the listing from Socialist International, you'll click the link and her name won't be there. DO NOT come back to Wikipedia and provide that as proof she's not a Socialist. Instead go back to the google results and hit the Cached link. That will show you she was there but they scrubbed it when that fact became an embarrassment for the Obama camp.

Now can all you children who love to play revert war, knock it off and just put the information in her bio and get it over with?

Put it in a section called controversy -I don't care- somebody with some writing skills, do it properly and be done with it.

But can we please (for a change) act like grown ups? Please? [08:13, January 12, 2009 69.58.78.160]

I believe the current mentioning of the fact was somewhere between useless and completely biased, thus I removed it. If you want to edit the fact that she attended a conference, go ahead, but mind the bias. Whatever your personal belief, personal opinion doesn't belong in these articles. Save other peoples' time and write it neutrally first. Nepstad (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Socialist International member?

www.infowarscom/?p=7060 : Barack Obama’s “climate czar” Carol Browner has been exposed as being a member of Socialist International, a highly influential group headed by a Bilderberg Group luminary that calls for the implementation of global government, despite Socialist International’s attempts to seemingly “memory-hole” information about Browner on their website.

So, what else is being hidden here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Headed by a Bilderberg group luminary that calls for the implementation of global government"?

Holy cow dude, get back to the facts. The woman worked for a conference headed by Tony Blair regarding fighting climate change, not Stalinfest '09. The reference to the Socialist Internationale is much ado about nothing, a bunch of paranoid ultraconservative blathering.

In short, this section is meritless. Nepstad (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You said: "Speaking before a group, which includes such mainstream members as the British Labour Party BTW, is not indicative of 'Political opinions'." Excuse me, what WOULD you consider to be "indicative of Political opinions"? If Socialist International is really mainstream, why deny that aspect of Ms. Browner's career? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuance 4 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Individuals cannot become members of the Socialist International, only political parties and organizations can. See their website: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=27 The Four Deuces (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the SI's web-page which supposedly no longer exists: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1779

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Commission membership to "Business Career" and added the reference to the Commission's web page. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The version I'm looking at now doesn't give a citation, merely an assertion that the Washington Times said something (with no date or link). The statement is negative and contentious about a living person, so, per WP:BLP, I'm removing it. It can be considered for restoration when it's supported by a reliable source. JamesMLane t c 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the text to

Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society.[22][23]

and have given the Washington Times and Fox News cites for this, both of which are reasonable stories if you read them. I think her name was removed in January 2009 because she had left the organization the previous summer, and with the publicity around her czar appointment they realized their web site was stale. So that doesn't seem worth mentioning. Discussion of what Socialist International is belongs in that article, and someone should probably write a Commission for a Sustainable World Society as well. If she played some influential role on the commission it would be worth adding more yet, but I haven't seen that yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide reliable sources rather than the Washington Times and Fox News. While the information you added is accurate, much of the information in these articles is not, and they are not reliable publications. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FOUR DEUCES, i just finished reading the Washington Times article and i would be fascinated to know the statements in it that are inaccurate. please tell me. Kenatipo (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally have no problem with using FoxNews.com stories as sources, and have on many occasions; their straight news stories on the web are much more reasonable than their on-air content, and indeed are often largely based on underlying AP stories (although not in this case). Washington Times stories I approach on a case-by-case basis; some are good (there are some real reporters working there in difficult circumstances), some are ridiculous. In this instance, I think both stories are accurate about Browner having been on the commission. I think their general description of Socialist International is fair enough (mainstream democratic socialist parties up to the British Labour Party). As for their ominous tone about Browner's name being taken off the web site, as I said above I think there's an innocuous explanation for that, so I haven't included that in the article. As for their conclusions about the Commission for a Sustainable World Society's agenda, I don't know enough to say, but in any case that's subject for a different article. What's pertinent here is what Browner was advocating on this commission, and neither article has much on that beyond the unthrilling session topic "How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?" Finally, I would include another mainstream news source as a cite if I could find one, but most of what's out there are just editorials and blog rants about how this shows that Obama has the country on the lock step march towards Tyranny blah blah blah. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that events like this are not covered in mainstream media. Browner's membership in the Commission is mentioned in the SI website and it appears that her membership extended beyond June 2008.[1] The "world governance" theory comes from the name of a paper at an earlier meeting called "From National to Global Governance: Priorities for a Sustainable Future" that discussed challenges to global governance (world governments, not world government).[2] The most likely reason that Browner's entry as a member of the Commission was taken down is that she would have resigned her membership when she was appointed to the US government, not that she had left in July 2008. However her past membership is clearly stated. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The two sources place her leaving in either June 2008 or Summer 2008; I've switched to the latter to give a little more margin. But there's no sources to support her staying until her government appointment (not that there would be anything wrong if she had; that's what happened with the other boards she served on). I've also added the first SI reference you give as a cite in the article, so that readers can see more directly the context. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The conference was June 30 - July 2. The other commissioners continued so the likely reason for her leaving is to take US government employment. On the other hand, it does not appear to be a full-time job and she probably had no responsibilities between conferences. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph to make it more concise. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Conciseness is good but not when it gets things wrong. The Commission is not a board of directors, as I understand it, and thus can't be lumped in with a broad statement about the other boards. And we have two newspaper sources that say she left the Commission in mid-2008 and none that say otherwise. My goal is to get this article to WP:GA status at some point, and to do so the article has to track its sources accurately, even on minor points such as this. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox news says "served until last summer" but seem to base their claim on the fact that Browner was listed as a commissioner on June 30 2008 but when they wrote their article (Jan 15 2008). [3] The Washington Times states, "by Thursday [Jan 8 2009], Mrs. Browner's name and biogaphy had been removed".[4] The fact is we do not know when Browner left but it is unlikely she quit June 30 on the first day of the conference. The Commission is not a board of directors but it has a board of commissioners. I will try to find further information, but my assumption is that she did not leave the commission in the summer of 2008. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This link shows her as a member in Jan 2009.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times article says, "An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted." She could have resigned with a "last day of service" at or after the conference, people usually give advance notice when they leave jobs. If you want, we can say she that the group's website had her on until January 2009. But we can't just say that she left when she accepted the Obama position. That implicitly accuses both the Obama people and Fox News of making stuff up. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Browner obviously did not resign in June 2008 because the conference ran from Jun 30 to Jul 02. We have no reliable source when she quit. It is unlikely that she quit on Jun 30 and missed Jul 1 and 2. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

She could have told them she was leaving in June, then stayed on through the completion of the conference. People do this all the time. For example, David Souter publicly announced he would be leaving the Supreme Court on May 1, 2009, but stayed on the court until his final day of June 29, 2009. However, to try to bring this long discussion to an end, I've added to the article that the group's website still had her as a member in January 2009. This is also more in accordance with what some previous editors have wanted, so hopefully now everyone will be content. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Kenatipo: The main problem with the Washington Times article[6] is tone. While there are few actual errors, it leaves a misleading impression. There is nothing different in the Commission's view of global warming than was agreed in the Kyoto Accord. You would never guess that socialist parties form one of two major parties in most countries that are allied with the US and that none of America's enemies are governed by SI members or that they could follow non-socialist policies, like Rogernomics. Furthermore the SI has no control over member parties.

You can read the terms of reference for the Commission here and decide whether the Washington Times has correctly described their position. My reading, among other things is that they did not "call for global governance", but rather for "new forms of global governance". They are talking about world governments, not world government.

Browner was not "listed as an individual member of Socialist International" - the SI has no individual members.[7] Click the "List of members in full" and see that no individuals are listed as members.

The Washington Times says: "Socialist International... says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies." "The organization often takes a decidedly critical view of the U.S." I do not think that its statements are critical of the US, although it does comment on US policies. (I occassionally read the site and do not remember any mention of the US, although they have harshly criticised the governments of Burma and Zimbabwe and Hugo Chavez for putting election barriers to the opposition.) You can see their latest statements here.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression the Washington Times story was saying Browner was an individual member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (not SI as a whole). The Commission website says "The Commission brings together leading personalities, among them serving and former heads of state and government ministers from different continents, ...", which sounds like it's an individual thing. In any case, we aren't responsible for everything that's written in a source, just the parts of the source that we are using to support our article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Democratic Socialists of America, not the Democratic Party, is listed as the group's U.S. representative. But Mrs. Browner was listed as an individual member of Socialist International, but not a member of the DSA."

Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Linda Chavez were actual members of the Social Democrats USA when it was a member of the SI. But the Washington Post probably never criticised Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for appointing them. "Reagan appoints member of socialist group that calls for world governance and critical of the US ambassador to the UN" "Bush appoints member of socialist group that blasts the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border as labor secretary".

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces, in fact, contrary to your assertion, there are NO inaccurate statements in the WashTimes article. if Browner is a member of the Commission and the Commission is a member of the SI, then Browner is a member of the SI. (i believe it is against WaPo policy to criticize socialists even when they work for Republicans! ask Obama if he feels that criticism of his policies is a criticism of himself.) the Washington Times article is a very good example of quality journalism: it is accurate, detailed, fair and balanced, interesting, it names its sources, and its tone is neutral. if Wikepedia articles were written at its level of professionalism, the Wikipedia would be held in higher regard. Kenatipo (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

where is Wikipedia's official list of Reliable Sources or Unreliable Sources? i want to check and see if the Washington Times is on the official unreliable source list. Kenatipo (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no official yes/no list that I know of, but WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is where the subject is discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Your argument that Browner was a member of the SI is illogical. I do not know if the Washington Times is a reliable source for WP, just that it is misleading and based on this example sometimes inaccurate, although interesting though it may be. It would be better to use a respected news source but none were available. Anyway the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

here's my logic: if C is a subset of B, and if B is a subset of A, then C is a subset of A. it's really that simple. the fact that there is no official RS list tells me that, among other things, the truth is where you find it, and that we should use our common sense and analytical skills when deciding on whether to use a source or not. gosh, even the NYT and the AP get the story right some of the time! i wouldn't reject them out of hand just because they frequently let their leftist point of view influence their reporting of the news. nor should you reject TWT or FoxNews out of hand for similar reasons. the TWT article used as a source is accurate, balanced, fair, informative, and its tone is objective. anyone misled by it probably has a personal problem of some sort. Kenatipo (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

These are not necessarily subsets per se. John Negroponte was US ambassador to the UN, which meant he was a member of the US's delegation to the UN. And the US is a member of the UN. But that does not mean that Negroponte was a "member" of the UN, because the members of the UN are countries, not individuals. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i see what you mean, WTR. knowing that SI does not have individuals as members, i understand the statement "Browner was listed as a member of SI" as shorthand for "Browner was listed as a member of CSWS which is an organ of SI". the statement "Browner was a member of SI" is technically inaccurate because it doesn't fully explain the relationships. Kenatipo (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two errors in the first paragraph of the WT article:

1) "the "Commission for a Sustainable World Society... calls for "global governance""

2) the Commission "says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change".

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, all this discussion energy would be better spent in writing a Commission for a Sustainable World Society article, since that is where the commission's philosophy/positions should be described, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

dead link

the link to footnote 31 appears to be dead. Kenatipo (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately it's at the Internet Archive, see here. I've updated the cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

good work and thank you. Kenatipo (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

how many husbands?

the article says she's been married three times. only two names are shown in the box at top right for "Spouse(s)". Kenatipo (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. At the time of her marriage to Downey, two different newspapers made a point that it was the third marriage for her. I've looked and looked but have never found anything that gives the who and when of the other marriage (besides the ones to Podhorzer and Downey). Anybody who can find this will get a barnstar from me! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

revolving door lobbyists

didn't President Obama have a rule about hiring lobbyists in his administration? and didn't Ms. Browner make at least $1M lobbying in 2008? shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article? Kenatipo (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ story that this article uses isn't fully clear, now that I read it again. Is the lobbying income from joint tax reporting or joint financial disclosure with her husband, or something she did on her own? Is it for 2008, or for some prior year, such as 2006 when it's known she collaborated with her husband on lobbying for the Dubai Ports deal? This Politico story says that Obama's pledge was not to hire people within two years of lobbying work, in which case the Dubai Ports work would not be an issue. This NYT story suggests that it's simply her husband's lobbying work that was a concern following the Dubai Ports involvement. But you're right that if she was doing lobbying work of her own in 2008, it would be a violation of Obama's rule. Do you have a good source that explicitly states this? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

no, i don't have a source for it. it might be better to put it in President Transparent's wiki article instead of Browner's. Kenatipo (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a source for it, then it doesn't belong in any article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

agreed. if and when i find a source, i'll put it in the article on the Halfrican. Kenatipo (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Free advice – making cracks like "President Transparent" or "Halfrican" (or "Shrub" or "George the Lesser" or whatever for the previous president) will get you ignored around here, no matter what the legitimacy of your edits. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

some people just have no sense of humor. right, Deuces? Kenatipo (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Worth mentioning: she doesn't expect a climate bill to be passed this year?

Does anyone else think this story is worth including? Ms Browner was the first member of the Obama administration to admit she doesn't expect a climate change bill to pass Congress before the Copenhagen conference in December: [8]. Robofish (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be combined with her actions in support of a bill. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added it. Her actions in support of the bill were already in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not say they were not. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, misunderstood. Well, they're in the same paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Businesswoman?

Why would she be described as a "businesswoman"? I see nothing in her bio that sounds like she has any experience at all in business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.76 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See the "Business career" section, especially the first paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carol Browner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy section, "She also became a brief target of fervent anti-"czar" radio and television commentator Glenn Beck following the Van Jones resignation" is "from" missing between "czar" and "radio"?

   No (it's a multiple compound adjective), but I added a comma after "Beck" to make it easier to parse.

   Right, right, I totally forgot that it's supposed to do that [the compound adjective]. I wondered whether or not to bring it up, but I decided to take a chance with it, obviously it backfired, so check and thank you for catching my mistake.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Nomination and confirmation section, please link "Nannygate" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. In the Second four years section, is this correct ---> "Clinton himself later wrote that Browner had accumulated a 'long list[] of important achievements'", meaning the parentheses in Clinton's quote. In the Business career section, "...took place on June 21, 2007 in Riverhead, New York" ---> "...took place on June 21, 2007, in Riverhead, New York", commas after dates, if using MDY.

   The Nannygate link is intentional, as there is no article dedicated to the 1993 Nannygate controversy, and Zoë Baird is not a good link for it since it is was broader in scope and affected more people than that. Thus linking to a disambig page is the least bad alternative. I hope to write such an article soon, at which point I'll change this link to it. The "[]" was a clumsy attempt to deal with a hard-to-use context (Clinton made the same assessment of two people, one of which is Browner); I've changed this to a paraphrase. The comma after "2007" has been added.

   Okay [on Nannygate], check on both Clinton quote and comma.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference 47 is dead. Ref. 58 is missing an accessdate. The "18 U.S. Code § 1913" link has a different url path, you might want to update that.

   Ref 47 has been changed to remove the URL (it went, came back, but now seems gone for good again). The accessdate has been added. The underlink has been updated.

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Who are the authors of File:CarolBrownerCirca1996.jpg and File:CarolBrowner2007.jpeg?

   I've updated both images with more and better information about their source and creators, although there are no specific-person photographer credits available for either. I've also added another image from the EPA era, with as much source information as possible.

   Check on both. I needed to ask, cause if I don't then I get in trouble, you know, but I'm glad you got it.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the above queries can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. My responses to all items are above. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for it. I do apologize for not getting to the review sooner, I needed a little break from here, but I didn't forget that I had this on hold, so. Anyways, getting back to the seriousness, thank you to Wasted Time R for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You weren't delayed in getting to it at all. Thanks very much for the review and the pass! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)