Talk:Royal Hamadryad Hospital

Cardiff Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hospitals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Building stone[edit]

The Cardiff Council Minutes for 9 November 1895 suggest a plan to quarry the stone for the hospital on Flat Holm:

Borough Engineer reported that he had visited the Flat Holm with Mr. E. W. M. Corbett, and selected a spot for quarrying stone for hospital purposes, subject to a royalty to be fixed by Sir W. T. Lewis.

This is a primary source which we should not cite, but we may be able to find a citable source. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. In fact, the potted history looks like a useful source for some facts about the hospital, for example the date of the foundation stone. It seems to have been written for the Archives based largely on secondary sources. Obviously it would be wrong to go to an archives and research into the hospital documents because that would amount to WP:OR. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, some of the 'facts' conflict markedly with the contemporary news coverage. For example the contemporary news coverage very clearly says the Marquis of Bute promised £10,000, which was increased to £20,000 by the time of his death. The potted summary somehow halves these figures! Sionk (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to post this link for the Cardiff Council Minutes for 9 November 1895. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the hospital[edit]

It may seem pedantic, but is it correct to use "HMS" for Royal Navy ships that have been decommissioned? I can't find a reliable source, but if a ship no longer belongs to Her Majesty then it is not Her Majesty's Ship. I think we should say "the former HMS Hamadryad".

It seems likely that the designation Royal only applies to the hospital building after 1905, which marked Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The 1901 OS six-inch map shows the "Hamadryad Hospital Ship". Can we find a definitive source? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about "the former HMS Hamadryad". As for its name in 1905, that is already sourced to a contemporary news article. Sionk (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of only two hospitals[edit]

In this edit I removed "It was one of only two hospitals in the world exclusively providing free treatment to seafarers" and a similar claim, with the summary "revert effectively unsourced claim. Source says "it was one of only two hospitals devoted to the free treatment of seamen from the world over", not one of two hospitals in the world". User:Sionk has restored one of these claims with the summary "if "the World" was the problem, I don't see why the remainder of the sentence was removed too".

Perhaps I should have been clearer. The cited source says "For 82 years it was one of only two hospitals devoted to the free treatment of seamen from the world over". It is unclear what geography this claim applies to: one of only two in Cardiff, in Wales, in Britain or in the world? I suspect it means in Britain because of the Seamen's Hospital Society in London, because the Western Mail where the story was originally published has limited research facilities, and because if it meant in the world it would probably have said so.

The Hospital ship article quotes the Hague Convention X of 1907 with "The ship should give medical assistance to wounded personnel of all nationalities". Military hospital ships offer treatment to seafarers, which is most likely free.

We should not make a claim like "one of only two offering free treatment exclusively to seafarers" without specifying exactly what we mean, and we have no source that allows us to make the claim more specific. I propose to remove this claim. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, the article mentions the similar hospital in London, which unambiguously suggests there were only two in Britain (if not the World). It's a bit forward to suggest we know better than trained journalists. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair comment to say that the walesonline article is ambiguous, and also that the subeditors of the London "quality" press would probably not have accepted it. I could live with us saying "one of only two British hospitals offering free treatment exclusively to seafarers", because the source presumably means either "British" or "worldwide" and our claim would be supported in either case. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. Sionk (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]