Contents

Talk:Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

Project Assessment[edit]

An alright start, but needs a better introduction and context. Nowhere in the introduction paragraph does it say what country this is taking place in, or the location of this Medical Center. These things should not just be assumed. Instead, begin with "The Walter Reed Army Medical Center of the US Army, located in Washington DC, is currently under allegations of neglect..." or something like that. LordAmeth 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty shocked to see this propaganda in wikipedia and on here unchallenged for so long. Why is there NO mention whatsoever of the privatization issue with KBR Halliburton and the Walter Reed scandal? The Walter Reed scandal is often used by corporatists and their pawns (average joe conservatives) to show how bad the govt. is with running health care. The only problem is that the TRUTH and FACTS of the matter is Walter Reed was basically privatized before and during the scandal. I'm sure they've been giddy with excitement that they can point to this errant wikipedia article for all the mistruths they need to promote their agenda stacked on top of lies.

It's time to get to work on this article so it represents... FACTS, not a conservative belief system based on half truths.

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? Cowicide (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing your POV argument here. I read through the articles and nothing is misrepresented here. I am sure contractors were supporting the misssion at walter reed, however no contract goes unwatch. Usual there is contracting officers in varying military and GS grades that oversee contracts and the contract. Much of the shortcomings was the bureaucracy. This article has stagnated for 2 years, removing POV tag --0pen$0urce (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was at WRAMC, and NO it isn't propaganda, YOU must NOT have. I was med evacd in, had to prove my station in OIF, got threatened more than once by cadre that if i spoke to reporters or congressional personal i would be "dealt" with. Heres one for you jack weazel ...one of my dear friends died of Serotonin Syndrome because of Zoloft interactions they knew about. The ARMY'S cadre at wramc were vile,cruel,and no souls. So learn what you're talking about before you open your jaw. 173.81.176.120 (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927224611/http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/OPINION/703120302/1006tohttp://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/OPINION/703120302/1006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080121024641/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,258347,00.htmltohttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258347,00.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]