Jump to content

Talk:Victorian era/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Early comments

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 that is 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).

8) There should be a section on orphanage in the Victorian era or perhaps Victorian orphans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.42.221 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

9) I'm quite sure that Era needs to be capitalized. Can someone confirm this and make changes? It is not even capitalized in the title! Archer Munk (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Archer Munk

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)

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.

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) All of this is total rubbish and no-one should beleive anything that anyone puts on here as some of it may be true.This is because anyone is able to edit what has be said pLease do not mistake the true facts to the false facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.57.116 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC) if the jack the ripper murders happend in this time era it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.18.121 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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. Oliver Twist is a well known film based int he victorian times.He is an orphan and finds himself adventuring around the town with a bunch of boys who are tought to be theives by their carer.He later finds himself at a new home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.57.116 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

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.  ;)

"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)

I was reading H.P.Lovecraft's Shadow over Innsmouth and was interested to note both "Georgian" and "Edwardian" being used in an exclusively American context: "Georgian houses", "Georgian churches", "the frock-coated finery of the Edwardian age". So it seems that in at least some cases the British regnal periods are applicable throughout pre-WWI US history. Rwestera (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)


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)

By the same logic, USA English should only be preferred over UK English when the article concerns a USA topic. Why should articles about France, for instance, be in USA English? There's no logical reason why USA English should be given dominance; to give it such would merely be USA cultural imperialism and 'what we say goes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.61.228 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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)


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)


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)

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)

Final Sentence?

I'm sorry but the final sentence of this article is incredibly glib and redundant. All eras started like the previous and ended like the next. No-one ever woke up one morning and said, "We're Elizabethan now, let's wear ruffs!". It would be more useful to say something like the era saw much change, and ushered in the modern world --Carty239 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it out.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

title cap

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Victorian Era" or "Victorian Age", not "Victoria era". I understand and live by the wikipedia policy on not capping titles, but it appears to me to be that this is a commonly capitalized term and is confusing without it. "Era" is part of the name of the object (time period), not an just an additional description of it, much like "Bronze Age". — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Technology and engineering & Health and medicine

Hello,

I noticed that the information in the Health and Medicine section was without citations. I added some content with citations and the page was locked by Kralizec! because of "Excessive vandalism".

I don't know why he thinks that the information that I submitted was vandalism. It was all cited, and the citations are reputable websites, such as the BBC, and none of them are connected with me in any way. The information is all applicable, concerning anaesthetics, dentistry, and antiseptics developed during the Victorian era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasei0 0 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yours were not the edits that caused Kralizec to protect the page, the edit history shows some quite persistent vandalism by muliple IP's. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Great :)

When I saw that it was protected I registered an account but I still can not edit the page. What can I do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasei0 0 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing

The last sentence of the lead currently says this:

The reign of Victoria was the longest in British history, and is foreseeably likely to be exceeded only if the present monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) remains on the throne to 2017.

The first bit is fine, but the second looks very odd, especially that "foreseeably". I can easily foresee some future monarch having a 64-year reign in a hundred years' time if the UK is still a monarchy by then. My guess is that what was meant was something along the lines of "...although this will be exceeded if the present monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) remains on the throne to 2017", but I can't be sure. I haven't edited because Wikipedia is being a pain and refusing to load the edit page for me. Loganberry (Talk) 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which future monarch can you foresee having such a long reign? It is reasonable to suppose that Elizabeth will continue to reign until 1017, when she will be 91 or 92. After all, her mother lived to be over 100. But if Chas. succeeds tomorrow, he will need to live to be 125 to reign as long. If Elizabeth and Charles were to fall under the same state landau tomorrow, William would become King at the same age as Elizabeth became Queen, and has a reasonable actuarial chance of becoming a nonogenerian, but is such an event "foreseeable"? "Foreseeably" does not encompass undefined people yet to be born. HLGallon (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Victorian Era

Does anyone besides me think that the article should be titled Victorian Era instead of Victorian era. I think it should be moved to Victorian Era. I would appriciete feedback. STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure personally, though this isn't the first time the capitalization of the title has been in question. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On population

In the beginning of this article, a passing reference is made to Ireland's sharp population decline while the rest of the Empire's population increased rapidly. This is, of course, due to the Great Famine, a disaster of central importance to the Irish people and one that had permanent impacts on Irish demographics as well as Irish nationalism. If population across the Empire is to be mentioned in this article, the Irish drop should be framed within the context of the Great Famine. This would both recognize the huge importance of that particular event, as well as better illustrate the contrast between Irish population trends during the Victorian era and those of the rest of the Empire. Bill Coffin (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Bill Coffin

Agreed. Actually, the whole population section needs to be re-written as it is confusingly worded and completely un-sourced.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

I´ve added Thackeray´s name to the parenthesis after literature because, as wikipedia itself states, in his time he was "second only to Charles Dickens". Regardless of his present popularity it seems to me rather foolish not to even mention his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.55.193 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of architecture to the Victorian Era

I have not read the article throughout but a search using Ctrl-F reveals nothing about the Royal Albert Hall and I conclude therefore there is nothing about the architecture of Britain during the reign of this Queen?

In fact it did of course effectively change very radically in a number of ways in particular as a result of industrialization. I do not here intend to be understood as referring simply to the creation of Victorian new towns but also to the fact that for the first time a majority of the population lived in urban areas and, within the countryside itself, there was a change in both England and Scotland so far as what previously had been common or shared land was concerned reflecting a simultaneous change in the form of agribusiness.

I suggest architecture and the use of land (which latter continues at least in theory to be entirely the ultimate property of the monarch in accordance with the feudal system) was something with which Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were directly concerned, and the demonstration of this is I suggest the form given by them to Buckingham Palace and later presumably by the Queen herself to the Royal Albert Hall, these two being in fact related. The Royal Albert Hall clearly in turn related directly to industrialization in the particular form of the World Exhibition (later World's Fair). The significance of this in terms of policy and relationship to the two extraordinarily violent world wars which whether she and others had foreseen and feared it or not followed immediately after her reign (that of Queen Victoria) should not perhaps be underrated given the particular format, taken as a whole, of the wording of the frieze on the Royal Albert Hall (Uncle Jonathan, Walks in and Around London, 1895, 3 ed.)

PS I have now, just a little bit too late but that sort of thing happens as far as I am concerned, discovered the existence of the article on Victorian Architecture. This text is now therefore provided there as being perhaps more immediately relevant than it can perhaps be considered to be to the era in general. If it is thought that it is not relevant to this site at all then it can of course be removed. It does I hope also have a general interest in historical terms.

Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.3.113 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Source Issue

The 20th source: Laura Del Col, West Virginia University, The Life of the Industrial Worker in Nineteenth-Century England Links to a nonexistant/404 error page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oamey (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.170 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


HTML tags for two articles on Child Labor were created incorrectly. There wasn't a space between .html and the title of the source. Fixed it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.212.125 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New category for Victorian Entertainment?

I'm thinking about creating a Victorian Entertainment category. Any thoughts? Should the Victorian architecture category go in here (in which case "Victorian Arts, Culture, and Entertainment" might be a better name)? Allens (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

style of culture section

it reads like a flowery first year history essay 216.104.123.107 (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

British Empire

Is no one going to mention the fact that, at this point, Britain was the most powerful nation on earth and was responsible for the biggest empire in history? I know it's unfashionable for Britain to acknowledge the empire, but surely it's rather essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.238.169 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would one age in the society mention something that has its own article. A wikilink should be more than sufficient for that task. Indeed, the Victorian era was at the end of the height of the British Empire.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The height of the British Empire was actually during the 1920s. This was due to the numerous extra responsibilities imposed on Britain by the League of Nations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.173 (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Victorians and their love of collecting

I was wondering if someone in the know could give me a bit of assistance please. I'm trying to get my head around why there was a sudden boom in collecting stuff during the Victorian Era? What drove them to hoard everything all of a sudden? Cheers! -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It was due to the Enlightenment along with the Industrial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.173 (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prisons.

I'm intending to add a section based on the National Archives photos of prisons using this BBC source. The section would name and link to a few notable prisons built at the time including Lincoln whose poor sanitation -a source of cholera outbreaks in the town -provided a compelling reason for reform. Also debtors prison. It's probably best added as part of a new Law and Order section also including policing. Comments welcome JRPG (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph sounds deceivingly positive

Why does the first paragraph only contain positive words about this subject? At first glance people new to the subject would get the impression that there was nothing wrong when the sections about child labour, prostitution and poverty clearly state otherwise. 87.159.65.78 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to forget the building of an empire based on racism to exploit the entire world (imperialism is only linked in the "See also" section at all). The article lacks all criticism of the abysmal British conduct in the colonies. There is also no source for any "refined sensibilities" mentioned in the lede. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

On the origin of the term Victorian Age

I came here looking for when the term Victorian Age was first used. I don't see it in the article. Does anyone know when it was first coined and could they add it to the article? I'm sure I'm not the only person who wonders this. __209.179.9.46 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The earliest citation in the OED for the adjective "Victorian" (Of or belonging to, designating, or typical of the reign of Queen Victoria) is in 1839 in an article in The Athenaeum. DuncanHill (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it was widespread though. The early 1950s were known at the time as the "New Elizabethan Age" (hell, they even got Britten to write the opera "Gloriana" for the Coronation) but it never really caught on. I've no idea what the answer is, but I don't think the term was widely used during her lifetime.Paulturtle (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

91.195.182.6 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2017

Allow fam let me edit innit Kinghuz (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The change you want to make is not clear. Please provide the change in X to Y format. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victorian era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Victorian era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Moral standards improved"

The page states "Moral standards improved very dramatically, especially for the middle class."

At the very least, this needs a citation. Aside from that, what is the definition of "moral standards"? or "dramatically"? Who says that "moral standards" improved, and by what metric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be very subjective, and indeed moralizing in the worst sense. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Suggesting to add a reference

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

All of World history condensed here or just UK in Victorian times?

We have many hundreds of topics to cover here ....every important topic has a pre-1837 history that we do not have the space to cover. That is the role of the OTHER wikipedia articles. likewise we do not have the space to show all the thousands of ways that the Victorian era influenced the 20th century. Rjensen (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Brief mentions for some background and context should be enough. Historical figures and events do not exist in a vacuum. Nerd271 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

</ref> Crime rates went up, leading to calls for harsher measures ito stop the 'flood of criminals' released under the penal servitude system. GRAMMAR ERROR: CHANGE 'ito' TO 'to' Noodlestrings (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 20:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

The following should be changed:

"Morally and politically, this period began with the passage of the Reform Act 1832." - Citation needed. Otherwise the sentence should be removed as it is not factual. The period began with Victoria ascending the throne. We cannot quantify "morally" or "politically" beginning here, as the changes underway that finally crystallized in the Victorian period had their roots elsewhere. The Reform Act has its roots in the french revolution, and in the call to reform in 1819. The moral changes were a response to the social upheavals in Europe and the perceived decadence of Victoria's uncles, something that Conroy used to engineer Victoria's image. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_System -- the political and moral shifts of an era cannot be simplified as beginning in a single moment in time.

"Multiple studies suggest that on the per-capita basis, the numbers of significant innovations in science and technology and of scientific geniuses peaked during the Victorian era and have been on the decline ever since." -- Remove. Only one study cited, and the claim is impossible to establish factual backing for this as we don't have enough historical data to compare to today.

"Domestically, the political agenda was increasingly liberal, with a number of shifts in the direction of gradual political reform, social reform, and the widening of the franchise. " -- Citation missing

"and Scotland's population also rose rapidly, from 2.8 million in 1851 to 4.4 million in 1901" -- Citation missing

"and avoided war with the United States" -- This should be removed or split into another sentence, as this is no longer on the subject of colonies seeking independence in the Victorian era. The United States fought a war of independence against the UK in 1775-1783.

"In addition, societal attitude towards contraception warmed, leading to the negative correlation between intelligence and fertility." The negative correlation mentioned here has no basis. Birth control was not significantly different from prior centuries, attitudes towards it were largely the same, varying from it being outlawed to the sale of various dubious contraceptives. (http://people.loyno.edu/~kchopin/new/women/bcabortion.html). A more accurate comment here about birth control changes would be the rise of Malthusianism in the 1870s, a theory around human population growth and its negative effects. Suggested rewrite: "In the 1870s, Malthusianism and the theory of overpopulation began to gain in popularity, leading to an increased interest in family planning."

"By 1900, the infant mortality rate in England was 10%, down from about half in the Middle Ages." Infant mortality in 1900 was 10% in the first year (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm). In the middle ages Infant mortality was estimated at 25% between 500-1066CE (https://www.representingchildhood.pitt.edu/medieval_child.htm). This sentence should be rewritten as "By 1900, the infant mortality rate in the first year of life in England was 10%, down from an estimated 25% in the Middle Ages." -- with the new citations.

Ideally this should be unlocked. I suspect there are many more problems in this and it is unusual that this was locked to begin with. 


Ioctaptceb (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not locked. It is under semi-protection since 2017, because it kept attracting vandals. Autoconfirmed or confirmed access is required, meaning that nearly any regular Wikipedia editor can make changes. Dimadick (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 Partly done: Please provide a reliable source that supports the rewrite: "In the 1870s, Malthusianism and the theory of overpopulation began to gain in popularity, leading to an increased interest in family planning." The rewrite for infant mortality rate was updated without the new sources provided, as neither details England's infant mortality rate in that era. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Victoria era

Historical context 85.169.78.253 (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Correct ‘ascent’ to assent Dfootermanwik (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Dfootermanwik (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Panellmi6154. Peer reviewers: Tynenmj9041, UrnessTyler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

English poetry anthology

Analysing the poem Spring 41.114.41.41 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Obscure sentence

"Starting with the anti-slavery movement of the 1790s, the evangelical moralize or is developed highly effective techniques of training family members..."

Unlock please

A bit premature to lock this page. The intro is arguable. Darwinism led to a greater reliance on rationality in the latter half of the period, and the romantics were a mostly spent force before Victoria came to power.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victorian_era/Archive_1&oldid=1251418262"