Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Pop Culture References

Does this section strike anyone else as seeming wildly out-of-place in this article, given the brevity and obscurity of the information contained therein? I'm sure there are literally hundreds of actual references in pop culture/fiction to the facility, yet the ones listed here (a 1951 robot movie, an undated reference to comic book heroine "Wonder Woman", and a rock song by Sean Penn's brother) add more of a "circus freak-show" quality to the section, rather than providing examples of the facility's mainstream "pop culture" presence. Surely any one of the many references to the center from The X-Files would carry far more pop culture "weight" than any of these paltry examples! I am inclined to remove the section completely from the article, unless it soon becomes populated with more credulous (or 'pop-culturally significant') content. Any comments/other opinions? -Grammaticus Repairo 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I second removal. Toby Douglass 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pup Culture: barks

This outsider believes that the Pop Culture segments of Wikipedia articles appear to have become part of the culture of the project. That being said, their tone can be a little questionable, especially in the context of a highly visible hospital/medical center/rehab center like Walter Reed which is striving (one hopes) to do very serious work. Letting us read about Wonder Woman in the context of Walter Reed is comic relief, I suppose, but I wonder whether we deserve comic relief. Bigturtle 01:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture is part of the Wiki because it is part of wider life, IMO derives ultimately from television and is, in my view, fundamentally harmful, since it trivialises, converting news into entertainment. Toby Douglass 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigturtle's assessment very accurately describes my feelings as I skimmed the article and came to a screeching halt upon reaching the Pop Culture section. While I personally have no quarrel, generally speaking, with Pop Culture sections in otherwise 'serious' articles, this one seems particularly out-of-place, as well as somewhat disrespectful to the subject matter, particularly given the current situation there. As far as Toby Douglass' comment about converting news into entertainment, I think it is simply an unfortunate fact that a significant portion of the US population is essentially disconnected from (or willingly ignorant of) the larger world around them, caring little about most newsworthy events that are not presented (often ficticiously) in a more palatable, "entertaining" form. But that is a discussion for another forum. Anyhow, is your comment, Bigturtle, to be interpreted as a vote to remove the 'Pop Culture' section? -Grammaticus Repairo 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Bigturtle 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of closure date

Guys, I'm not sure how to add a footnote, but I clarified the tentative closing date (to September 2011), per this BRAC page:

http://www.wramc.amedd.army.mil/BRAC_2005/index.htm

Would someone be so kind as to add a footnote, if needed?

Thanks,

pd


Perm Dude 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Walter Reed General Hospital?

I propose merging the article Walter Reed General Hospital into the larger Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The larger article already contains almost all of the information in the shorter one. I think it would be reasonable to just transfer the little bit that's left and redirect Walter Reed General Hospital to Walter Reed Army Medical Center instead? (Note: I probably wouldn't think the same about merging Walter Reed National Military Medical Center since the new facility will be a merger of others with large, separate histories.) --Closeapple 03:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Just because it is a stub, dosn't mean it should be merged. They are two diffrent hospitals, and I belive they should be two diffrent articles. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They are NOT two different hospitals. WRGH was the precursor of WRAMC - WRGH no longer exists, and the building it occupied (Building 1) is now the administrative center of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command, which is headquartered on the WRAMC campus. WRGH is nothing more than a footnote in the history of WRAMC, and having a separate article for it is the equivalent of having two separate articles for Fort Lesley J. McNair and Washington Barracks. --Sapph 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the smaller article would find a good home in the bigger one as a subsection. And Walter Reed General Hospital can be redirected to WRAMC. The information presented above by Sapph42 is significant. ~ Rollo44 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The WRGH was a separate entity (different building, different name, different hospital) for 65 years before WRAMC broke ground in 1975. (Based on the longevity, if combined maybe any single article ought to be called WRGH rather than WRAMC!) WRGH also has alot of interesting history (Gen Pershing lived there, on active duty, until he died) that is not yet in the article. 140.139.35.250 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the reasons Sapph42 articulated. The fact that MGRH was a separate entity doesn't mean it still is -- it's not. WRGH became part of a larger entity that was built around it, literally merged into the larger entity, and so too should the articles. croll 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WRGH was never a 'separate' entity from Walter Reed Army MediC - WRGH was officially merged with the Army Medical Center in 1951 (and no longer referred to as WRGH, just as the AMC is now WRAMC). All of the military and government lit on WRGH is in the context of the WRAMC; this gov site is titled "walter reed army medical center" and shows the GH building...I think the interesting info on the WRGH building can be incorporated into the present article, as that history is continuous with what is now known as the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Pershing fact could be said to pertain more to the building than what it was called... Similar situation i think to Columbia College of Columbia University/King's College. (p.s. i think the pic on the NLM site is way better than the current panorama; am looking into copyright status...) Wileycount 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WRGH/Building 1 is a separate facility on the Walter Reed campus (separated by a tunnel from WRAMC) and has a rich history in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.67.181 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The lineage is the same and should be merged into the history of WRAMC Jons63 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for controversy

Does anyone else feel a separate article for the current controversy over the hospital is needed? I've noticed that the subsection in the article is getting long and may require its own article. In several years, the information of the subsection may be trimmed down as it recedes into the historical distance, whereas with its own article all facts, events, and ramifications would be maintained. The rest of the article is short and few editors would allow the growing information to overshadow the rest which might lead to undesirable trimming of information. ~ Rollo44 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest a separate article. What does everyone else think? ~ Rollo44 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Small section in the WRAMC article, major separate article. 140.139.35.250 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If no one opposes, I'm going to create a separate article soon titled Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal. ~ Rollo44 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! 140.139.35.250 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! ~ Rollo44 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The summary paragraph of the scandal needs to at least be cleaned up and sourced a better (I added a couple), notwithstanding the presence of sources in the main article (which looks good). Also, perhaps this section should expand to describe changes to the medical center that result (which is clearly ongoing at present). Wileycount 02:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 neglect scandal

IMHO it's worth mentioning in the 1st paragraph. Would anyone agree? Thanks 89.139.227.226 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... Too POV & agenda-like... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Reed separate from the VA

In light of the Walter Reed Scandal, I propose that this article prominently address the fact that Walter Reed Army Military Medical Center hospital is run by a different Cabinet agency than that which runs the Veterans Health Administration;

Walter Reed Hospital is under the Department of Defense whereas the Veterans Health Administration is under the United States Department of Veteran Affairs. This article mentions the Department of Defense under '2005 Replacement Proposal' but I suggest the proper place be in the introductory paragraph.

I feel that this distinction is lost on a lot of people who know little about the military and/or how the government works in general. Fluorescentinca (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is saying that WRAMC is under the VA? The intro already says that "WRAMC... is the United States Army's flagship medical center". That the Army is under DoD is well known. This is also clear in the infobox... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'2007 neglect scandal' section completely omits major FACTS

Why is there NO mention whatsoever of the privatization issue with KBR Halliburton and the Walter Reed scandal in the '2007 neglect scandal' section? That was a major factor and its omission represents a political agenda instead of an encyclopedic agenda. It should be briefly mentioned here and go into full detail on its own page (which it doesn't... at all).

Privatized Walter Reed Workforce Gets Scrutiny http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902082.html

Weightman to testify about an internal memo that showed privatization of services at Walter Reed could put patient care services… at risk of mission failure http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/Weightmansubpoena/

Walter Reed scandal connected to Halliburton http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48845/

I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a political arm filled with half-truths? Cowicide (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So stop whining & put a line or two in the article. Has someone stopped you? Geeeez! Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Use?

I see the facility is on the National Register of Historic Places. So, it hasn't been knocked down to build condominiums, presumably. Can anyone add what the facility is being used for currently (or at least note that it's sitting empty, awaiting sale/lease/reallocation)? (This should be a short remark with a link to an article about the new owner, management, or tenant) Co149 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Defense Dept sold the campus for about $22 million

There's nothing in the article about the campus being sold to Washington, D.C., which does have plans for development. dcist.com/2016/10/_walter_reed_signed.php

I think the original hospital building is being preserved. It may not be part of the 66 acres sold to DC

The article mentions the costs of closing Walter Reed under BRAC but says nothing about cost savings of the merging the two facilities, nor the profit off the sale. Ileanadu (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial views

The NLM collections has some nice aerial views of the complex which should be uploaded and included in the future: https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/?page=2&q=Walter+Reed+hospital&utf8=%E2%9C%93. Opencooper (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Walter Reed Health Care System for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Reed Health Care System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Reed Health Care System until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Reed_Army_Medical_Center