Talk:William Beaumont Army Medical Center

Request for better and more recent picture of the current hospital buildings


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

1. I am writing to request a new picture of the current WBAMC. Hohum graciously provided an updated picture of the current hospital building (thank you!). However, the picture is taken of the south side of the building and there are unsightly fences in the foreground. From the south, the Omar Bradly building cannot be seen and the helipad obstructs most of the view of the VA center. I am writing to request a more recent picture (Hohum's is from 2008) and one that is either from the front of the building (the westward-facing side) or a picture from above (e.g., from ontop sugarloaf mountain).

2. I am also requesting recent pictures of building 8 (1893 hospital) and building 1 (1904 Hospital).


 * I responded above with a photo; don't know if it's any better than what you have; feel free to adjust it. I can try again next time I'm in town; my parents live right there (since 1957). Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, Dicklyon; that is a beautiful picture. Since it is more recent I would prefer to use yours.  The angle of your picture (you are standing to the SE) allows better visibility of some of the other buildings, though one cannot see the Omar Bradley Building.  Also, while the snow is beautiful it does not represent the typical (non-snowy) view of the hospital.  Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesofine (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the snow was the whole reason for the photo. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you need the view from near the water tank, across Arizona St. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Dicklyon, thank you for adding a picture that accurtately shows how the hospital appears most of the time. I realize that my previous comments speak of beauty, and I was referring to your technique and your photographic approach, I was not speaking about the building itself. I think my previous comments might have affected spintendo and caused her to aggressively attack me and her perceived bias. Just to clarify, when I spoke of your "beautiful picture," I was referring to your photographic technique and not to the building itself.thesofine (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I found I had this good one from 2002. Use it if you like. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added it at the bottom of the article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request help with restoring some sections and addition or improvement of references
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I am requesting help with addition of references. Recently Spintendo made very valuable edits to the page (thank you!). In making these helpful improvements, Spintendo deleted paragraphs due to "Public doman text which was insufficiently paraphrased" WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and "Unreferenced texts placed far beyond the reach of nearby reference notes" WP:INTEGRITY. This contributor largely agrees with Spintendo and requests help in retaining the pertinent sections that may have been deleted, in accordance with WP:RANK. Any help in this endeavor would be greatly appreciated as this user (Thesofine) is a novice contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesofine (talk • contribs)

Section on Unit Insignia
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Recently the section on Unit Insignia was parsed down significantly. Thesofine agrees that the Unit Insignia section would not qualify for inclusion under WP:RANK if this article was only about a hospital. However, this article also is about a military unit. The importance of military heraldry is not often apparent to civilian personnel, but heraldry is how military units identify each other and is a source of identity and morale for the service members that are part of the unit. Distinctive unit insignia and other unit identifications must to be approved by United States Army Institute of Heraldry. Other military units have sections in their Wikipedia page dedicated to their insignia: 1st Cavalry (US), I Armored Corps (USA), 7th Transportation Brigade (USA), 291st Infantry Regiment (United States), 700th Support Battalion (USA), 834th Aviation Support Battalion, 3rd Signal Brigade, etc.

Thesofine understands that the language approved by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry is very specific and organized by importance, so that this may be an instance where close paraphrasing of Public domain text is either indicated (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE#Public Domain) or maybe the use of quotations. Thesofine would appreciate guidance with this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesofine (talk • contribs)

Public domain text and paraphrasing vs attribution
I think your revert of 14k of PD text with the edit summary "Public doman text which was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material has been removed" was incorrect. Public domain text may, by definition, be used freely, though it should be attributed. Can you show to the contrary? In fact at the top of the guideline you cited, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE it says "Public domain sources and CC-BY-SA-compatible sources may be closely paraphrased" (emphasis mine). If there's no good reason offered not to, I plan to revert back to inclusion of the PD text. Bri.public (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The article carried a disclaimer saying it featured public domain text, but offered no proof beyond the disclaimer that it was in the public domain. My involvement with this article is the result of a report made to CopyPatrol, and featured text copied from the goarmy website shown here. A copy of the iThenticate report is shown here and a copy of the CopyPatrol report is shown here. The information taken from the army website included detailed minutiae involving the operation of the Medical Center. If anything, information merely being available through the public use exemption does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles should not become a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather, a of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects. Regards,       Spintendo       23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have decided not to edit this WBAMC article for some time, especially considering the reference to the Rex071404 case. BTW, there is a typo in the first sentence of the "Formative Years" subsection.  I wanted to provide some of my own thoughts on the recent comments regarding WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE:
 * The sections from goarmy.com were about 4 sentences of text and they were referenced in a small paragraph (less than 3 sentences). Based on my reading of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, referencing public domain text is all the proof required.
 * The other deletions (the remaining ~10k of PD) were not paraphrasing from goarmy.com. The text was from other primary references, most all public domain.
 * Instead of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, now WP:NOTEVERYTHING is offered as the reason for deletion of text. I have read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and cannot find the section that applies to the deletions of this article.
 * I also read the entirety of, and am not sure how that case applies to the deletions in question.
 * I actually prefer some of the edits and deletions that SPINTENDO made to this article. However, I feel some of the edits to streamline and remove unnecessary text went a little too far.
 * The amount of patients a hospital sees in one year is not necessarily minutiae when describing a hospital, it demonstrates how big or small the hospital is. Just for reference, other hospital wikipedia articles offer similar data: John Hopkins Hospital, Mayo Clinic, University of Vermont Medical Center, Beaumont Health, Washington Hospital Center, University College London Hospitals, University Medical Center Freiburg, etc.
 * A brief description of the architecture of buildings on the NRHP is not necessarily minutiae . . . though I would agree most of the previous information on this matter is not as pertinent to the hospital or the military unit.


 * In the end, this is all about the edits, not the editors, and I think the edits made recently have generally been productive and encourage improved paraphrasing and more referencing. These edits also encourage more focus on encyclopedic information for this article, which is good.

19:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One year after Spintendo's unnecessarily aggressive deletions
Thanks to everyone for your support after Spintento's unjustified deletions. Her lack of response speaks volumes. I decided to take over a year break after Spintendo's overly aggressive and reckless accusations and her baseless deletions. I just added a section on the civil war years and would be happy if anyone could contribute additional references or insight.thesofine (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent vandalism by | 2601:800:c003:3360:b9a6:a9df:1c66:f351
As stated above, I have agreed not to edit this page in any way per Spintendo's requests. However, I did revert two recent vandalism edits to the page by an anonymous user. I do not know the current commander of WBAMC since I am no longer actively editing this page, but I am pretty sure it is not "COL Impolite" or "COL Oxy Continpusher." thesofine (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. And don't take the efforts of other editors personally.  I don't know if Spintendo overreacted or not, since I haven't watched carefully, but patience and dispute resolution procedures can usually work these things out.  I think it's probably true that your edits went too far in bloating the article with trivia; try again to add stuff, a little at a time, and see where the pushback is, if any.  By the way, my relation to WBAMC is that I used to ride my bike through the desert and gullies where it stands, and I was in a Boy Scouts troop in one of their old buildings down near Dyer Street.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)