Talk:Railway surgery

Hospital trains

I saw an interesting report about todays use of a hospital train in remote parts of Russia. In Moscow I saw many unusual converted passenger cars, which I believe were hospital cars. Unfortunately, I did not take a photograph, because the commuter train, in which I sat, was travelling too fast. I guess there should be suitable photographs somewhere. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw on a documentary that a doctor with an office is carried on the trans-Siberian railway. I'm convinced also, that they must have employed railway surgeons during its construction at least. But I could not find anything usable in sources to add to the article. SpinningSpark 15:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall, the article is excellent and was a highly enjoyable read! I have some very minor comments, which I've attached below. Sorry you had a fairy long wait for the review. Thanks for an interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing. That's not too long a wait. I've recently had five or six reviews come up together (I guess someone organised a purge of the backlog). Most of them were telegraph related articles nominated in March, but the oldest was nominated in November 2018 and didn't get reviewed until September this year. Anyway, I'm always happy to wait, there is always some other article to write or improve. SpinningSpark 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   •It's somewhat unclear what is meant by "Company medical staff were also expected to help achieve political aims with expert evidence". Is that meant to refer to keeping down costs? Or does this refer to some other "political" aim the railway might have? Some clarification would be nice.

   Not really, it does literally mean political aims, such as opposing regulations and legislation on safety and sanitation that the railway companies are not happy with. They are being used as spin doctors rather than medical doctors. Of course, that might all boil down to bottom line on the balance sheet in the end, but that wasn't the intended meaning. I've added In some cases chief surgeons were appointed purely on the basis of their relationship to important politicians. Hope that gives the clarification you were looking for. SpinningSpark 10:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   •Some little grammatical junk:

   •(In the lead) "The duties... were mostly concerned with..." is an awkward read. Maybe "The duties... mostly involved investigating accidents..."? Or "Railway surgeons mostly investigated accidents..."? Or whatever else you like.

   Done. SpinningSpark 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   •(lead) "India railways to this day still maintain...". "To this day" and "still" are redundant. Just one of those two would get the idea across.

   Done. I've also changed maitain → maintains for grammatical agreement—Indian Railways as an organisation is singular. SpinningSpark 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   •(Function/Traumatic injuries, last paragraph) You have a quote "yes, I see a lot accidents from the highway". Is that a typo (i.e. should it be "a lot of accidents"), or is that the way it's stated in the source?

   Done. SpinningSpark 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   •(United States, first par) "From 1850 until World War I American railroad companies started to develop their own medical...". This makes it sound like the companies were just starting to develop medical infrastructure for that whole ~60-year period. Based on the rest of the section, it sounds like that's not the case (i.e. things were no longer "starting" by the late 1800s). Either way, it's a little confusing as written.

   Done. SpinningSpark 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   •I'm a little uncomfortable with "Railway surgeons were keen to establish their profession as a separate discipline with unique problems" cited only to the 1899 textbook Railway Surgery example (unless that textbook says "we railway surgeons sure are keen to establish the separation of our profession.") Any chance one of your other sources comments on this?

   Well no one puts it quite as bluntly as that, but there is a clear impression. Herrick in particular, argues the case at length with examples

   • "...between the force which may be exerted by railway engines and cars, and that of other construction, there is so great a difference as to change the condition of things to a very marked degree." (Herrick)
   • "In its [the Railway Surgeon] pages, and at their annual meetings, railway surgeons carved out their professional self-definition and their relationship to patients and their employers, the railroads." (Aldrich)
   • "These two organizations took the lead in developing railway surgery as a speciality..." (Stemen)
   • "The great army of railway surgeons recognize he fact that in the treatment of railway injuries no special instructions are given in our medical colleges, and no text book on surgery especially treats of this class of case" (Stemen) Stemen is here arguing that such specialist literature needs to exist, not that it is unnecessary.
   • "The railroad presented unique hazards and created new types of injuries to which most doctors were not accustomed. Railway surgery quickly developed into a de facto medical specialty..." (Gillespie)

   I think that gives a flavour of it. SpinningSpark 12:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   •Any chance you know the source of c:File:Drthomasbond.jpg? It's almost certainly public domain in the US (since it was very likely published sometime during his life) but it would be nice to have that information at the Commons page.

   Sorry, I couldn't say, it's not my upload. But I'll try to do a search later and see what I come up with. SpinningSpark 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   •I've transferred c:File:Railway surgery operation.png and c:File:Hospital car, Florida.png to Commons so other Wikis might use them (and left your local copy per your request).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I have now responded to all the points above. On the Bond image, I have requested the original uploader to comment. SpinningSpark 14:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Great! The changes you made look good. For the "keen to establish their profession..." thing, fair enough. For the image, thanks for looking into it. No sense in holding this up any further. It's a flying-colors pass. Cheers all around, and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Article needs a complete rewrite

I am baffled at how this got GA article status. It is extremely US-focused, which wouldn’t be a problem if railway surgeons were presented as the localised phenomenon they appear to have been. Instead it drags in medical consultants hired by European railways despite their different roles, and spends far too much times talking about accident rates when hospital distribution is the more likely cause of their particular rise and fall in the US. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources make it very clear that accident rates were exceptionally high in the US due to low safety standards (fencing, track quality, train spacing procedures etc) which in turn led to the special development of railway surgery in the US. Better hospital availability is not going to change accident rates. It might improve outcomes, but it won't stop accidents from happening. SpinningSpark 17:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Accident rates alone would not necessitate railway surgeons if the regular medical system could handle them. It is clear that what necessiated the employment of railway surgeons in the US was that many workers were injured in highly remote places. Railway surgeons never became necessary in Europe not because they were more safe (though they usually were) but because workers were never too far from a hospital. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If that point has a source, then I am more than happy for it to be discussed in the article. I've taken criticism for this page before on failure to include other countries (you seem to have the opposite view however) but the bottom line on Wikipedia is that we can only include what is in reliable sources. Criticisms without sources are really not meaningful, or at least, not actionable. On the other hand, if you want to point out a source and ask why it has not been included – then we can talk. I have looked very hard for sources on these questions but have turned up very little.

I agree, you are probably right about hospital density for many west European countries. But I would question whether that applied to the vast expanses of the Russian empire for instance. There is also a difference between operational accidents (which were undoubtedtly low in Europe) and construction accidents which were always high until the modern era of health and safety at work. I know it's not a railway, but it serves to illustrate the point; the first thing that was built during the construction of the Grand Union Canal was nothing to do with the canal itself, but a chain of hospitals to service the large numbers of expected casualties. SpinningSpark 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Whispyhistory, can you offer anything here? Are there railway surgeons in India, for example? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64:.... I may not be much help here, but had a brief look. You could have title "Railway surgery in the US" or individually search out other countries with expansive railways, and piece together. I can see a short section on India in there. I will keep a look out. Africa: Advert for railway surgery[1]. Railway guards (1866) in Sweden required to have some knowledge on railway surgery [2]. China[3]. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

-Spinningspark You have misread reliable sources, and produced utter nonsense such as "In Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured". I am looking at Aldrich's comparison tables in Death Rode the Rails and while British railways were significantly safer than American railroads for workers, it is not anywhere near to the extent required to explain why one country developed a system of company-provided healthcare and the other didn't. Re: Grand Union Canal - I cannot find an online source for this, but in any case temporary hospitals built to service the shantytowns that the transient navvies lived in are definitely nowhere near the same thing as what happened in America.

-Whispyhistory I would be wary of taking that much from a two-sentence article. Knowledge of first aid seems more plausible a requirement, especially as this was for guards, not dedicated surgeons. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Railway surgery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: With this GAR open for over seven months, and neither side willing to engage, I am closing with no consensus. My own personal checks showed a general alignment between the sources and the article; there may be minor source-text irregularities, but the major accusation of 'severely US-biased' is not justfied enough for a delisting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Severely US-biased, confuses railway-operated hospitals with doctors paid by railway companies to represent them in legal cases involving medical matters, contains blatantly false statements like "in Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured" that because of the way the article is written are very hard to remove without major rewrites or massive excisions. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• The article is biased towards the US because the detailed sources are American. What's more, those sources explicitly state that railway surgery was espeially (even uniquely) developed in the US. The alleged blatantly false claim is what the source says. There has been a discussion on this on the article talk page, but new sources have not been offered. It may be untrue that US railway surgery was unique, but without sources showing that, we can only write from the sources we have. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work isn't it? SpinningSpark 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• You can say that it's due to lack of sources, but a) have you actually looked for foreign sources, and b) that does not justify the confused presentation of the article that fails to clearly delineate between countries where railways actually provided medical care and those that did not. Second, the source for the blatantly false claim does not say what it you say it does - it divides railway injuries into four categories, but absolutely nowhere suggests that they are ordered by frequency, or that the author had any great knowledge about accident frequency in the first place. That you misread the source so badly makes me skeptical that you have represented the other sources accurately.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I looked for sources quite extensively. I'm not very competent in languages, but did not turn up much at all outside the US except a few scraps in mostly 19th century sources. The Great Britain section (and by extension Western Europe) makes it very clear that railway surgeons in that country had a radically different role "...primarily as medico-legal consultant regarding injury claims rather than practical surgery." I'm at a loss to understand why you think it doesn't say that. India is the only other country with a specific section and there the emphasis is most definitely on treatment of the injured.

On the statistics, Bond does give an indication of numbers "Accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate..." That is, passenger injuries. That this is different in the US and employee rather than passenger injuries predominate is given in Herrick with some statistics. (Note I have just adjusted the page range in Herrick to include the numbers he gives). SpinningSpark 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've also reworded this to avoid the claim these classes are in statistical order. SpinningSpark 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You have still kept the completely erroneous claim that passenger inujuries outnumbered employee injuries in Europe, which the source says absolutely nothing about. Further, with regards to countries, the article spends far too long talking in terms of a mythical international "railway surgery". Most of the article should be placed under a US heading. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I have dropped off a hopefully-neutrally worded request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, since this review seems to be stuck for quite some time. SnowFire (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I have seen this on the GAR page and read the page a few times in the last few weeks and finally realised why I kept on coming back to it. Specifically I have been wondering where the dividing line between Hospital train (plus adding in Rail ambulance) should be and if, perhaps there should be some sort of merging of content? Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Eldomtom2 and Spinningspark: It seems as if nobody else knows enough to know which side of this dispute is "correct," hence this GAR being stuck in an unclosable position. Since it seems like you two are the ones who care the most about the article, is there any sort of compromise that could be had here? Nobody else has even edited the article in the past 6 months. I think you're the only people who can resolve this. SnowFire (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really have any more to say than has already been said. The closer needs to assess for themselves whether or not the article meets the GA criteria, in particular whether or not it fairly reflects the sources available. I'm willing to do further work on the article, but I can't do it from sources that don't exist. SpinningSpark 10:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I have no knowledge of railway surgery, and am only looking at this article because this GAR was mentioned at WT:GAN, but it seems to me that Eldomtom2's objection to the source for the claim about relative injuries in Europe versus the USA is legitimate. The article currently says:

  In Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured. For instance, in Britain, accidents on the line such as crushing between wagons and being struck by trains (accidents suffered mostly by railway staff) were far fewer than passenger injuries through collisions in 1887.

  The source given says accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate. The "first class" is contusions and shocks resulting from slight collisions; the source does not say that the victims are mostly passengers. Nor does it say whether this enormous preponderance applies to Britain, or to Europe as a whole (which is it?) Nor does it say that it is referring to 1887. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still a bunch of errors

There are still nonsensical claims such as "In Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured" in the article. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)