Talk:Victorian Turkish baths

Gradual replacement of the main article, excluding individual baths

Delayed by 21st century problems I am now continuing work on a more structured and sourced article on the Victorian Turkish bath to replace the current one which mainly comprises corrections and additions to the section on the bath before it was separated from the (now excellent) article on the Hammam. I will, of course be looking here for any disagreement before making any replacements, and continuously afterwards throughout the process and welcome all comments, factual corrections, etc. If there are no general objections I will give prior notice before changing the various areas of the article. Ishpoloni (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed first sections and progress report

The phrase "Turkish bath" has been, and still is generally, used loosely to mean all sorts to all people, as indicated in the relevant disambiguation page. To try to clarify this, I am drafting three short sections to replace the existing first two. Proposed are: Definition; Terminology and usage; The Victorian Turkish bath process. This will be followed by: Early history of the Victorian Turkish bath Ishpoloni (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Following the earlier indication of my proposal to gradually replace the existing article with a more structured and appropriately sourced one, I hope to start the process in about a week's time.

The first phase replaces the initial general description of the bath with a slightly lengthier one which also summarises what is to be found in the remainder of the article. The image of the Bishopsgate bath will be moved to a later section and be replaced by a more relevant one. In like manner, information on the existing page which is omitted from the suggested new one will usually be included in a later section.

A short new section is proposed on terminology and usage which will clarify the difference between the terms 'Turkish baths' and 'Victorian Turkish bath'.

It is proposed to replace the Description section with a more extended section on the Victorian Turkish bath process.

Soon afterwards, a second phase is proposed which divides the History section into the following subdivisions: the Victorian Turkish bath, the Islamic hammam, and the ancient Roman baths; early Victorian Turkish baths in Ireland and England; early Victorian Turkish baths in Scotland and Wales; early Victorian Turkish baths outside the United Kingdom.

In the third phase it is proposed to replace the current final paragraphs with a new section called The Victorian Turkish bath today. It is proposed to subdivide this into the following sections: the decline of the Victorian Turkish bath; repurposed Victorian Turkish baths; Victorian and Victorian-style Turkish baths still in use.

If the above proposals meet with general approval and any necessary corrections or omissions rectified, then the proposed final phase will add the following new sections: Victorian Turkish baths designed for specific user groups; the design and construction of the Victorian Turkish bath; cultural representations of the Victorian Turkish bath. It is proposed to insert these sections after those on the bath's history, and before those on the Victorian Turkish bath today.

Any suggestions regarding omissions, or changes to the above proposals would be much welcomed. --Ishpoloni (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The first three phases proposed above have now been uploaded and replaced the earlier page, including all that was included before with additional information and images.

If this appears to raise no problems, I will start work on the final phase, the new sections which it is proposed to insert between the History and the Victorian Turkish bath today sections. These will probably be: Victorian Turkish baths designed for specific user groups; the design and construction of the Victorian Turkish bath; cultural representations of the Victorian Turkish bath. There may also be an additional section on who owned the baths.

As before, and suggestions, corrections, or omissions are welcome.Ishpoloni (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

As a result of helpful comments, the section on the Victorian Turkish bath today has been slightly expanded and has been better sourced.Ishpoloni (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have today added a new section 'Ownership of the baths' following the History section.Ishpoloni (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Following the section on the ownership of the baths, I have now started the new section 'Victorian Turkish baths designed for specific user groups'. After a brief introduction the first two subsections have been added. These are: 'Victorian Turkish baths for the working class and the poor' and 'Victorian Turkish baths in hospitals and asylums'. As before, any suggestions, corrections, or omissions are welcome. Ishpoloni (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A third subsection, 'Hydropathic establishments and hotels', has been added to 'Victorian Turkish baths designed for specific user groups'.Ishpoloni (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Total disclosure

The subject of this page, 'The Victorian Turkish bath', is an entity which was identified and defined by me in the 1990s and published in 1999 in a website of which I am the author and which is still extant. The phrase seems to have entered common usage as an entity (as opposed to being merely an adjectival phrase) as can clearly be seen in comparing the quite distinct entries and images on Google for 'Turkish baths' and 'Victorian Turkish baths'. The definition referred to above has since been adopted as the definition of 'Turkish bath' in editions of Collins English dictionary and continues as such in the latest 14th edition (2023).

I am also the author of the only book on the subject (published in 2015), although there is at least one Phd thesis written after that date. The book has been positively received in peer-reviewed journals (http://www.victorianturkishbath.org/_EBOOK/5Reviews/5ReviewsEng.htm), and both website and book have been cited extensively in peer reviewed publications. http://www.victorianturkishbath.org/CTHANKS/1ThanksCiteSF.htm (website); http://www.victorianturkishbath.org/_EBOOK/6Citations/6CitationsEng.htm (book).

Clearly, in posting copy to this page, or in draft form here if requested, I aim to use original sources wherever possible. Inevitably there will be the occasional instance where I need to quote from website or book, but I will in no case use any material which can still be considered original research. Like all copy there will inevitably be the occasional mistake and I welcome all corrections which help to make the article more useful.

I am long retired and I receive no payment towards the cost of maintaining the website and I neither receive nor have ever received any payment for the book commissioned by Historic England, which sent my fee direct to Save the Children Fund on my behalf.

Is there anything else I need to declare or which anyone considers to be a problem before I outline my proposed changes? Ishpoloni (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not personally experienced with this situation, but just some tips that come to mind:

I assume you already did, but make sure you look carefully at WP:SELFCITE (the relevant section in WP:COI). If you're not sure about any aspect of it, feel free to ask further questions at any time at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. I'm sure someone there would be happy to advise, or otherwise direct you to the best place for further information.

My personal impression from reading Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB is that, overall, citing a published book is better than citing a personal website, if possible, because the book had to go through a publication process handled by what looks to be (in this case) a reputable publisher. That makes it easier for others to trust that it reflects a high quality of research. (But don't take this as an instruction, just a general suggestion.) R Prazeres (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's helpful to have those specific pages to check. Many of the general policy, etc, pages seem rather daunting and, at one stage, made me temporarily give up the idea of contributing. Ishpoloni (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I probably should also clarify more directly, per your final question: in my understanding, no, I don't think you need to undertake any other specific steps to address this issue. (But again, you can get more expert advice at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest if needed.) You've declared your potential COI here, and future editors can raise any concerns they may have here too. R Prazeres (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change of title to plural form

Arising from undertaking the current page revision outlined above I have concluded that though it is normal practice to use the singular form of nouns when naming Wikipedia pages, in this instance the plural would be more appropriate. This is because although the singular form 'Victorian Turkish bath' accurately names the bath as an entity, the term is also widely used in the plural form to name specific establishments, eg, Cork Turkish Baths. See, eg, Collins English Dictionary (10th ed) for their definition of Turkish bath.

Using the plural form as the article title would therefore be more accurate a description of the content of the article, and tend to discourage the setting up of a separate page to deal with groups of specific establishments.

I will, of course, continue to work on the revision of the existing page but ask that serious consideration be given to changing the title so as to use the plural form 'Victorian Turkish baths'.Ishpoloni (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The article has now moved to its plural form. Apologies to anyone whose article I've missed when making the redirects and altering the appropriate links.Ishpoloni (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be absolutely fine. Any redirects you missed would have been picked up by a bot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC).

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind in future. But, btw, would it also have updated the links? Ishpoloni (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Work in progress

As noted above, this is a major revision of the article in place before this year (2024). There are still additional sections being written after which existing ones may be changed, and earlier references may be better understood without myriad wikilinks being added. Ishpoloni (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A new subsection has just been added dealing with Victorian-type Turkish baths on ocean liners.Ishpoloni (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Current state of the article at July 2024

Although other writers may wish to add sections on further aspects of the bath, the article as originally planned, included the following sections which remain to be written (although the last three are possibilities only):

Victorian Turkish baths designed for specific user groups

————in private houses

————in the workhouse

————for animals

Victorian Turkish baths buildings, and their decoration

Women and the Victorian Turkish bath

Sexual activity in the Victorian Turkish bath

Publicising the Victorian Turkish bath

I am currently having a break from writing in the light of what seems to be a minor form of censorship.

At present, anyone searching Wikipedia for information on 'Victorian Turkish Baths' (including over 80 previously unavailable images) will find it directly under that heading. However, anyone looking for that information using only the outdated search term 'Turkish baths' will be automatically directed away from that information to an article on hammams—a completely different subject.

The correct way, and certainly the most helpful and most appropriate way, to deal with a term such as this which can be used as the title of separate articles on either of two totally different subjects, is to automatically direct searchers to a disambiguation page—in this case Turkish Bath (disambiguation) where they are given the immediate option to choose Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths.

Instead it has been decided that there has been a consensus reached after a discussion by a handful of editors, who may or may not have read both articles, that redirecting searchers away from 'Victorian Turkish baths' is correct because Hammam is a more important subject (a so-called primary topic). There seems to be no way to appeal this decision, so I hope someone else will correct it at some time in the future. Ishpoloni (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Carlisle Baths

I see these are sadly on the Vic. Soc.’s At Risk Register, [1]. I hope you will continue working on this page, as you have done some excellent work and it is a high quality article. Sometimes, consensus goes against us and one just has to roll with that. It isn’t immutable and a different view may prevail in time. But that doesn't impact on the quality of this article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your extremely kind remarks about the article. They really are very much appreciated.

So far as the "consensus" is concerned, I'm not sure how this consensus decision was reached when half the views expressed were relating to the problem of synonyms and grammatical variations where primary subject heading is clearly relevant, when the actual problem related to disambiguating two totally different subjects which have at some time been erroneously labelled "Turkish baths". And no one has yet answered my query as to whether any of the consensus-forming editors had actually read both articles to help their decision making. Alas " a different view may prevail in time" is not comforting when one is well into one's 90th year!

But thank you again for taking the time to write words which, I expect, will help encourage me to finish the article. First, though, I have somne editing to do on a couple of Guidance pages. Best wishes, Ishpoloni (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)