Talk:1995 Russell Hill subway accident
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1995 Russell Hill subway accident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Ultimate cause edit
The ultimate cause of the accident was human error, due to the fact that the TTC, after 40 years of subway operation without a fatal train accident, had become complacent on matters of safety. In particular, training of subway crews was inadequate, and improper driving was too often tolerated.
- I removed this section as it consists entirely of unsourced opinions. Feel free to source this stuff and add it back in (i.e. "x said the TTC had become complacent on matters of safety", not "the TTC had become complacent on matters of safety". --Eloil 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Assessment edit
I have rated this article "C" class due to its length/content, but it's not B class quality yet due to a lack of inline citations and referencing overall. PKT (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Name of the article edit
As far as I know there has only been one incident know to be named after Russell Hill and in relation to the TTC. Why are putting the date the article name? it seems fairly redundant unless there was a 2001 and 2006 Russel Hill incident as well. eja2k 00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Accident vs Incident edit
A while back someone changed the name of the article from "incident" to "accident" with no real discussion or explanation why. Police will tell you there is no such thing as a "car accident" - they prefer the term "collision". The same can be said about this "incident" - it was not an "accident", it was an event that had many causes (lack of oversight, lack of training, malfunctioning equipment etc.) As this article incorporates all of these aspects and touches on the emergency response, coroners inquiry and resulting changes - incident does seem to be the best descriptor for the entire event and therefore the article. It should also be noted that internal TTC documents do not refer to the "incident" as an "accident". eja2k 13:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The substitution of other terms for "accident" is based on the [IMHO arrogant] application by lawyers of a secondary technical definition of "accident" that is clearly marked as a legal definition in dictionaries. That definition defines an accident as an unavoidable occurrence in which no clear fault can be assigned.
The primary, common definition, familiar to any grade schooler, is an occurrence that was not intended by anyone involved.
Most automobile incidents, even if avoidable, are accidents. The recent truck massacre in Nice was anything but.
What part of "intent" don't you lawyers understand? Babybaby0 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
'The Incident in the Arts' citation edit
When I saw the 'Citation Needed' with the 'Russell Hill' play, I found a Globe and Mail review (from 2003) of the play itself. I'll post it here, but I don't know if it counts as a proper citation. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/disjointed-script-rocky-ride/article1334321/
Thanks in advance.
216.165.219.87 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)