Talk:Victorian era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
UK Collaboration of the Fortnight Victorian era was the UK Collaboration of the Fortnight for the fortnight starting on November 21, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see Past Collaborations and History

I propose the following changes:

1) The politics section needs to be an overview of the major movements: the 1832 reform bill, the chartists, the rise of Socialism, and the Contagious Diseases Acts

2) "Culture" needs to be transformed into a section on "anxieties and defining characteristics"--anxieties about progress and reform, that kind of thing.

3) "Social Institutions" needs to be deleted

4) "Events" needs to be deleted

5) "Victorian Entertainment" needs to be transformed into "Social Life" and needs to include casinos, theater, and music, at the very least.

6) "Science, Technology, and Engineering" needs to become something like "Advancements" and we need to roll Darwin, Lyell, the railroad, the steam engine, gas lighting/heating, and the underground into it.

7) Prostitution needs to be deleted or rolled into a section on Victorian Crime with the caveat that prostitution was legal (and still is).

What do we say?

--Str1 wsu 05:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

---


I'm not quite sure about the claim of Queen Victoria's naiivete in matters sexual, though of course it's likely she would have been so at first. There are, after all, the suggestions that in later life she carried on a discreet affair... -- April 08:45 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)


--- Why the distinction between books and novels? -Tubby

I don't think there is one; there's a distinction between those written by Dickens and Conan Doyle as one lump, and those by the Brontë sisters in another lump. Whether there's a purpose to that, I cannot say. --Brion 23:32 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

--- Why is the Franco-Prussian war mentioned in this context? One might just as well bring in any event of the later ninteenth century? The Crimean War? The Boer War? Both would be more relevant

Djnjwd 01:17, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What caused the prudishness of the era? Kingturtle 22:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The last sentence of the article, comparing modern and Victorian values, is interesting. However, I'm not sure if it belongs in an encyclopedia.

I have left this last sentence in, although I'm dubious about it, and I've taken out some of the less important (less characteristic) items, in particular Jack the Ripper, as it seems to me from the discussion below that the consensus is not to have it. Djnjwd 23:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Jack the Ripper

Jack the Ripper has been taken out of the article by 134.2.3.102 twice. Let's not get into an edit war, please. What are the reasons for linking the "Jack the Ripper" here, and what are the reasons not to do so? Let's discuss here and go with the consensus. -- Infrogmation 14:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

If interested only in Victorian era, one would expect Jack the Ripper. Do we need a separate article about "sociocultural phenomenon of the interest in a sex murderer, who by chance lived in the times" now "called victorian era"? What is your opinion, Carlos? -- 199.217.251.218 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
My asking was to try to understand why people were changing it back and forth and to avoid an edit war. Why does Jack the Ripper keep being added and keep being removed? I guess I mildly lean towards inclusion since he was famous in the era, but I'm willing to reconsider if someone can articlate reasons why this shouldn't be in the article. -- Infrogmation 14:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Giving the reasons once again (in more detail):
(1)If interested only in the Victorian era, one would not expect Jack the Ripper, because the sociocultural phenomenon of the interest in a sex murderer is a sociocultural phenomenon of the present, or of the "modern times", if you like, but not of the Vicorian age in particular.
(2) Jack the ripper, as one of many sex murderers who happened to live during the Victorian era, is by himself of no interest - the thing that interests about him is why and how he became the symbol he is today. Someone becoming a symbol and being referenced by popular culture is a sociocultural phenomenon (worthy to analyze, of course). But, as I said before, Jack the Ripper is not a sociocultural phenomenon of the Victorian era in particular (if he were, none of us would ever have heard his name).
(3) The wikipedia page about the Victorian Age is supposed to give an outline of the era, that is, to mention the most important baselines. Now hypothetically: even if Jack the Ripper's fame were a phenomenon of the Victorian Age it is questionable whether his fame should be mentioned, as it produces a rather accidental impression to pick him out and leave others unmentioned. (Of course the latter affects the whole page - see the accidental range of writers mentioned.)
(4) It should be most desirable that an historian specialized in the Victorian age attended to the page. Hey, historians out there..! ;-) -- 134.2.18.33 14:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious that the IP address talking above has little to no information about what Jack the Ripper meant to the Victorians. The Ripper's fame was, in fact, a HUGE phenomena of the Victorian age. It's probably one of the items that got the most news coverage of the entire era. Here we have the seat of power for the world's greatest superpower and suddenly note only is a killer is mutilating woman on their doorstep, but the press jumps at the realization of the social and economic conditions of the slums that had such abject poverty in the midst of the most wealthy nation in the world. It was a huge phenomena, moreso to them than it is now. People today either sort of know of Jack as some old serial killer or a fictional character. People in the Victorian age knew Jack as the bogeyman that could show up anywhere and get anyone. He was a phantom who could not be caught, killing at will in an area that was densely populated and patrolled by police that covered every street on beats that crossed mossed areas every fifteen minutes. People across England and all the way to the US (at least as far out as Leadville, Colorado) amd down to Australia would work themselves into a hysteria that Jack was in their town.

I don't for the life of me understand what 134 dot whatever means by "a rather accidental impression to pick him out and leave others unmentioned"... Leave other what unmentioned? Serial killers? There may as well not have ever been any others. News events? What got more coverage?

Based upon this, I'm adding Jack back, based upon the idea that several people have argued in favor of his inclusion and only one unregistered person has argued against.

-- User:DreamGuy Nov 14, 2004

OK, does anyone agree that Jack the Ripper is really creepy sounding? I mean, c'mon, did you read the letters he wrote?? ---Puppyest08

[edit] Copyright infringement

The three paragraphs commencing The period saw a huge amount of artistic production... appear to have been copied from [1]. I'm deleting them. Please restore them if you know that permission has been granted. Arcturus 17:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OLiver Twist

Oliver Twist takes place in the victorian era and i think that is really interesting because i have been in that show a few times. i am in acting so i know the play fairly well.

[edit] Gladstone and the London Underground

I've temporarily removed the sentence "In January 1863, Prime Minister Gladstone opened the first section of the London Underground." Gladstone was not prime minister until 1868, so clearly at least one of the three facts are wrong (the date, whether it was Gladstone, whether it was the Prime Minister). Can someone more knowledgeable please correct this? —Wereon 18:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The date's right. No idea whether Gladstone or Palmerston were there. Paul B 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] end of victorian

I see there is discussin as to the beginning of the "victorian era" but what of the end? When I did history in school there was some discussion at the end of th book that the victorian era didn't really end until the 1st world war. Don't know if anyone with more knowledge could comment? I suppose its like the 60's where the decade and the cultural movements or whatever don't exactly tie up.

There can be no clear answer to the question, because "Victorian" is a loose concept like many periodising labels. Even though the queen died in 1901, you can argue that the culture persisted. Paul B 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peaceful at war time?

Just a little unclear to me... "The period is ostensibly characterized as a long period of peace and economic, colonial, and industrial consolidation, temporarily disrupted by the Crimean War, although Britain was at war every year during this period."

I can see how this is possible, but the article doesn't clearly define it.


why is there a whole sub topic on PROSTITUTION - surely it isnt that important?! --80.42.213.76 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what I was wondering as well. Maybe with a little reworking it could be changed to "Roles of Women" or something like that?

I'm a specialist in Victorian prostitution and I don't even think it should be there.  ;)

[edit] "Victorian America"?

Is it worth mentioning that the term "Victorian" does not just apply to the UK (and other territories over which Victoria reigned)?

For example, I've seen books about "Victorian America", and references to the "American Victorian Age" - I'm not exactly sure where such concepts would fit into this article. As a Brit, I find it strange that post-Revolutionary Americans would name an era after the reigning monarch of the once-hated "old country"! 217.155.20.163 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that "Victorian America" specifically means "Victorian United States." Rather, I think think it has more to do with Canada and the West Indies referring to the era as the Victorian era, which would make more sense for them as Imperial holdings. At any rate, having studied a good deal of American (U.S.) history, I have never heard the years of Victoria's reign referred to as the "American Victorian Age."

Yes, I think it is very much worth mentioning the geographically broader meaning of "Victorian". I used this article to disambiguate the term Victorian in an article about an American figure of the same period; it was a good fit but not the best fit. Such a mention would be helpful to that article and perhaps to others. May I suggest adding a sentence similar to the following as the last paragraph of the lead:

The effects of the many changes that occurred during the reign of Queen Victoria were not limited to Great Britain and the British Empire, but also greatly influenced daily life in Canada and the United States.

--CliffC 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"American Victorianism", or "American Victorian Age", are correct terms referring to that period of the United States' history, from a cultural point of view (while "gilded age" or "progressive era" are more about the institutional/political history). On American Victoranism scholars are making studies and researches since the 1950s. American Victorian Age lasted even longer than the British one, since it actually ended with the outbreak of the First World War. Some guys suggest that in particular places (e.g. some country towns in the U.S. South) a Victorian culture did resist even between the two World Wars. Anyway, I think American Victorianism would need a separate article, for it took a lot of British Victorian characteristics but it was a quite distinct period. Fchiamu 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humorous Vandalism

A number of minor jokes seem to have been inserted into the article recently--most of them inobvious to casual scanning. The only ones remaining when I arrived referenced the "Fabio Society" (with assorted nonsense) and misstated the number of people to die on Bloody Sunday as two billion. I replaced it with the previous text.

Boilerplate: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

63.151.141.243 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you missed quite a lot of changes, I've reverted them all now, you'd have spotted the changes more easily if you'd used the history and/or diffs to compare the various changes. Anway, I reverted the article back to the last clean version, so no harm done. You're better off doing a revert, rather than trying to manually correcting changes. David Underdown 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Drat. My bad, David. In fact, I did compare the histories and diffs but accidentally incorporated other errors. It appeared as though the last clean version had some other differences that were not vandalism, or I would have simply done a revert. I'm not experienced with Wikipedia, and perhaps I should have left it to others. As it is, I'm not quite sure how I managed to return the other errors to the page.63.151.141.243 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries, just needs practice. By the way have you considered creating a user account, it's a bit more personal than talking to an IP address? Welcom to Wikipedia by the way. David Underdown 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have considered it. I have so many accounts at so many different places that I've begun to lose track of them, but I come to Wikipedia enough that it may be worth doing. Just haven't gotten around to it yet. Perhaps I'll take the time today. (And indeed I did.) Mabus101 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crackdown on brothels leads to streetwalking?

"Moral reform movements attempted to close down brothels, something that has sometimes been argued to have been a factor in the concentration of street-prostitution in Whitechapel by the late 1880s."

Is there a source for this? There had been anti-vice movements from the 17th and 18th centuries, and streetwalking was, so far as I've read, fairly consistent. Who has argued that such crackdowns were a factor in streetwalking in Whitechapel? Judith Walkowitz?


--24.2.81.199 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several such discussions, in general literature on the period and in "ripperology". See here, for Robert F. Haggard's paper on the subject. Paul B 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muffins and trees

Someone has written muffins and trees at the end of the second paragraph. Can someone please delete it. I would do it myself, but I'm new and I can't figure out how to change the paragraph.

this page is terrible and no use to me. what about victorian servants.who ever wrote this will never become a historian.

What about them? Paul B 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section: "Social Institutions"

The new section "Social Institutions" is very simplified, over-focused on the 18th century (sic), and quite unsourced. I'm strongly tempted to remove it. But perhaps the anon will be back to improve it, or somebody else would like to have a shot (HINT HINT)? Bishonen | talk 04:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC).


Perhaps there should be a small section (if not a separate article) about Black Victorians. I just came back from Europe and was quite surprised by the number of people of African decent depicted in much of the work (mainly 1800-1900). I did a search on yahoo and apparently there is a book about it and a several articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.253.133 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Joseph Bazalgette.

I notice that the name of Joseph Bazalgette and his achievements during The Great Stink with the building of the London sewerage system aren’t (yet) mentioned. If noone has objections to the inclusion of him on the page I shall include a piece, rather than writing something now and then having it reverted later. 81.111.213.95 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason to single out Bazalgette, though the general debate about environmental health and the importance of engineering, seweage etc, could be discussed in greater detail. Paul B 12:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this page is locked, but there's a misspelling that's caused a broken link.

someone with editing privileges, fix the link to arthur sullivan, someone spelled his last name with only 1 l and tried to link it to his page, but the misspelling is preventing that link from working.


[edit] Reworking the page

This page needs sections on the railroad, the underground, agricultural advancements and failures. Can anyone step up and write these? I've made some slashing changes to try and whip this page into shape. --Str1 wsu 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like you've done some work on the subject, but as it removed a good bit of what others have written here it got reverted. I suggest that major reorganization or rewrite suggestions be discussed here on the talk page first. Note also, that if the page or sections are getting over long, we can spin off material into seperate articles like "Victorian politics", "Victorian entertainment", etc. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That's great and all, but this article is a real wreck, and when so much of the discussion is devoted to whether or not Jack the Ripper should be included, nothing of substance was being added except for lists of dates and events, which will only make a bad article turn into a sprawling one that's still bad. I did my best to organize the politics section into some of the key political developments of the period and removed the list of political events that did not even include these defining events of the period. I removed the section on prostitution--most of which was written by me--because it is really out of place here. Obviously, I prefer my version of the page (which contains information about the chartists, the 1832 reform bill, and the rise of socialism) to a page on the period that does not. Additionally, if Jack the Ripper is to be retained, it ought to be included in a subsection on Victorian crime. --Str1 wsu 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unbalanced Article

I would just like to suggest that this article is somewhat unbalanced. The section on prositution gets around thirty lines were as the section on culture gets thirteen lines. As I am unsure of what the correct sort of size is for an article of this type I am unsure whether the section on prostitution needs tobe somewhat shortened or whether the section on culture (and indeed other sections) need to be radically lengthened. I would say however that either way this article needs to be rebalanced.

I agree. I even deleted the section on prostitution (of which I wrote most) but the changes got rolled back. I have suggested some revisions at the top of the page.--Str1 wsu 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't prostitution a large part of their culture? That and the gin houses they frequented o-so-often. Also is there any evidence (written or otherwise) of victorian swear-words?

yes, prostitution was a large part of the culture. But the larger problem is that there are glaring omissions in this page that were reverted by a sysadmin. For a page like this to not contain discussion of the reform bill, the chartists, socialism and the CD acts is sort of like a page on American history not including the Revolution and the Civil War. My experience trying to make this page better is a case study in why more academics don't bother with wikipedia. My students use this horrible page, complain to me when it sucks, and when I try to make it better, my changes get reverted. --Str1 wsu 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the best forum to complain about the editing systems of the wikipedia.

Well where then? I've appealed to the Admin who reverted my edits and have heard nothing. I've posted suggestions for revision on this talk page and have heard nothing. The problem is that when I made changes, they were reverted. When I didn't make changes and waited for consensus, it was ignored. This page is badly in need of help. I tried to help, and now I meet a wall of frustration because my changes were reverted NOT because they were bad, but because they removed too much of what others had written. This is, I think horrible policy. Changes should be reverted because they are wrong, not because they were too aggressive.--Str1 wsu 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to stoke your rage, but it sounds like you want to change much of the page to your view of what the wiki should be. If someone has taken the time to add to this page, and the info isn't wrong, then why should it be removed?

It's not rage. It's frustration. --Str1 wsu 07:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You know very well that your positive changes were not reverted. What you call "adding to this page" were in fact massive deletions and little more. Paul B 10:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spelling

156.34.142.110 edited this article yesterday, changing American spellings to British ones (-ize to -ise, adding U's). While this article is about England, are the British spellings — and British English in general — really preferred over the American spellings? Is this official policy? Or is either version perfectly fine as long as any given article is consistant? I'd rather have an actual answer about this: the last thing we need is an edit war, complete with accusations about whose English is more "correct" and who supposedly isn't speaking it at all.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At WP:MOS#Disputes over style issues is the statement "For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic." --CliffC 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drug use

I read somewhere that in all the decades of the last 100 year the prevelance of drug use was not the greatest in the 60s as most people would think but in the 1890s in the victorian age.

most drugs were legal and were used a lot. victorian garden parties where the guests would retire to the parlor to indulge in opium and cocaine was not uncommon.

I do not now have sources on this but I think it would show a better view of how those times really were. FatherTree 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reworking This Page

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia and a creator of a site on Victorian England which I've been developing since 2001. I must say I'm upset to see this site taking over my original place on Google; but as long as it presents the period accurately, I can deal.

What I can't however, as a lover of this period, see "Prostitution" appear as the most important thing that developed during the period. I, too, propose that it be taken out of this section and added to another. During the Victorian period, there were inroads made in many areas: industry, medicine, art, science and others.

I do agree, that the section titled "Prostitution" be taken out of here as it really doesn't belong. If you want some help in writing this, then perhaps you should be following the lead of those of us who have been writing about this period even before this site was even thought of.

I apologize, I do not know nor could I find the proper update, however I've added my signature as best as I could.

--User:VictorianLady 18:42, 6 September 2007

I moved your comment to the bottom. New comments go there. Adding content is better than removing it. I'm always bemused by the argument that things will be improved by chopping out something rather than adding relevant material on the "inroads made in many areas: industry, medicine, art, science and others." Paul B 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Period clothing?

It would be really helpful if this article (and others from other eras) included information on period clothing. I'd add some if I had the information, but I came here looking for it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.236.56 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Ihawal

User:Ihawal added some crap to the article in this revision. I reverted it my three times for the day, but Ihawal reverted it back and in the interim vandalized my user page. He/She/It also left a very badly written comment on my talk page (at the top), claiming his/her/its edits were in good faith. Initially the only 'source' as such, "linerider.com", hardly looks like a source and has since been changed to "wikipedia". Could someone who hasn't reverted this page three times today please clean it up?  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion section

I think that there should be something on the religious debate in the era. It is in many ways a key topic and I would recommend either adding it under the culture section or a seperate section on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmancav66 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)