Talk:Victorian era

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

Copyright infringement

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