Talk:Neo-Victorian

Japan?

Is there a reason why this is considered a Japanese article? I thought Gothic Lolita covered this, and was the focusing article about Japanese Neo-Victorianism. Also, this article seems to be redundant as compared to Gothic Lolita and Gothic fashion. 128.61.29.174 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Victorianism is not confined to Japan, so no I don't know why this is labelled as a Japanese article either. Unless someone has a specific reason for Japanese exclusivity I'd suggest removing the header. ~ Brother William (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus from RSN

Those who considered the work bookspam:

• Dougweller
• Brmull
• Nuujinn
• Ian.thomson

Those who said it should be included

• Andy Dingley (who has since become silent on the issue)

Herostratus and FuFoFuEd stated that if a book is informative it should be included -- it was shown that the book had no editorial oversight or factchecking (and failed WP:RS) and that the work is not a reference work but an autobiography. Citing this is like citing a non-famous blogpost of someone's experiance at a Star Trek convention in an article on Faster than Light Travel. It has also been shown that the book does not fit the exceptions to WP:RS given in WP:FR.

Silver siren seems to be arriving at the consensus from Blueboar's question about whether I found the book or the link objectionable (the answer, I found the book ojectionable because of the link, because I'm rather experianced in dealing with bookspam). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, you are misrepresenting me. I said the web page was spam, not the book itself. As noted at RSN, further reading entries are not required to meet RS criteria, and I know of no policy that requires that a book not be an autobiography to be included in a further reading section. How the book wound up on the list is not really relevant. The question is whether the book, not the web page promoting the book, might be of interest to readers. I haven't seen the book, but I imagine neither have you, but I can conceive that such an autobiography might be of interest to readers of this article, which concerns a renewed interest in Victorian customs and dress. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see now I misread your agreement over what was spam.

WP:Further reading lists reliable sources, or "historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers" as potential subjects -- None of which this book qualifies as. As the author of the book is not Neo-Victorian fashion incarnate, and the article is about neither her nor her book, including her book would be like including someone's blogpost about how their dog likes to gnaw on corn in the article pet.

WP:Further reading also says that books are not to be added by their publishers or authors, as was originally the case here.

WP:BOOKSPAM says we should not add books just to draw attention to the books, but to contribute to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the discussion was rapid and warmish. But Wikipedia:Further_reading is just a proposal, and your assertion is not supported by WP:FURTHER, the current guideline. That says "...a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject". What was originally the case is no longer relevant--even if WP:Further reading were a current guideline, the author's link was removed, and the discussion is whether or not it should be restored or not. We are in apparent agreement that the web site is spammy, I think there is real consensus there. Andy Dingley has seen the book, perhaps they can provide a synopsis of what they recall of it to help inform discussion? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The web site gives a reasonable taste of what the book is about, which is why I supported it, despite the issues about linking to a sales site (you do realise we already link indirectly to Amazon for every book ref that gives an ISBN?) or hosting via Weebly.

As the author states, this book describes the core of the modern "neo-Victorian" experience - and thus why I don't think it's justified under Victorian fashion. It's not about corset theory in the detail that other books cover, but it does describe the life-changing aspects (in the everyday sense, it's not some lofty self-improvement spiel) of dressing as a Victorian Lady, particularly when this also marks you out as a freak in today's context. I don't wear a corset, but I live with someone who does on occasion - this week we've yet another newspaper interview & photo shoot. This changes many everyday things, including meal planning. Big Victorian breakfasts? It's because you can't eat once you're bolted in. Posture changes hugely. Much of the formalism of movement comes about, not because of Victorian education or cold showers, but because it's the natural way to move when wearing a corset. It's very like a kimono with obi and the way they in turn change your attitude to seating (it's easier to kneel than to sit in a chair). Ladies need to be helped to carry heavy parcels - not because it's polite, or because they're "the weaker sex", but because a corset requires you to lift anything with your arms, rather than your back muscles, and so the effect is indeed that they're made less able to do physical work. We need to re-examine the causality of some pre-conceived notions about Victorian (or even more significantly, Edwardian) society and behaviour: it was the dress that often created custom, not custom creating fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I learned very little from the web site. I have learned a bit more by looking up the author in google news. In regard to ISBN numbers, they are a recognized identifier of books, and what the web does with them is beyond our control, and many of these issues would not arise had the book in question an ISBN. Can you distinguish what is your personal experience from what the book covers? The former, however interesting, isn't really relevant here--what we really need is a sense in concrete terms of what the book is about. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That much above is the overlap between both. Really though, you want to be asking a woman with experience of corsets, or a gender theorist (many of my friends are Goths, so gender politics is a big issue locally). I just sew stuff, I don't have to wear it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I really don't want to be asking a woman with experience of corsets, I want to be asking someone of experience of the book. You are, as far as I know, the only person to have held the book in question in your hands. I'm asking you about the contents of the book, not about personal experiences or the experiences of friends. When you speak of carrying parcels, large breakfasts, etc. which of those are covered in the book? How long is the book? What are the topics the book covers? That's the kind of think I'm curious about in this context. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The site's description of the book is: "Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live a Victorian life in modern-day surroundings? What is it really like to wear a corset twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week? How do modern people react to finding a "time-traveler" in their midst? Waisted Curves: My Transformation Into A Victorian Lady is the fascinating, true account of a twenty-first century woman learning to live a Victorian life." The primary focus of the work does not appear to be describing the fashion, but about her experiances interacting with others while she happened to be wearing neo-Victorian fashion. To Andy Dingley, Silver Siren (who has given the impression of having the book), or anyone else who may have the book: Is the main focus of this work, the purpose for which it is written, its "thesis" as it were, a discussion and description of Neo-Victorian fashion in itself? Or is it a combination of anecdote, gender theory, autobiography, etc? Does the work primarily discuss the types of clothing and accessories common to neo-Victorian fashion? Or is the point of the work about how the author had fun wearing the clothes, and about people's reactions to her wearing the clothing?

I found an excerpt from the book:

"I stared at my reflection in the glass. The dear mirror was showing me the most flattering lie possible, and my mind struggled to fit the lovely form in the silvered glass into the image of what I truly knew myself to be. This was not me. And yet, it was..."

Is this a representative excerpt of the book?

This review says the "book tells of her decision to wear a Victorian-style corset on a daily basis, the physiological changes involved, and the reactions of society to her choice."

The description, excerpt, and review give the impression that clothing is not the main focus, but reactions (the author's and others') to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, why does a book have to be about clothing? To my knowledge and experience Neo-Victorian is NOT exclusively about clothes (though they do play a significant part). If this woman has chosen to start dressing in a corset and 19th century clothing styles, or in other words to become a Neo-Victorian, and her book tells about her experiences then it sounds ideal as a "Further Reading" suggestion. Most NV stuff has been swallowed up by the steampunk behemoth so it's nice to see something that doesn't require cogs. ~ Brother William (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the article is about a fashion, that pretty strongly implies it's about clothes and accessories. I mean, fashion does refer to outward appearance.

Let's look at other articles' "Further reading" sections:

• World War II (a good article) only lists the "World War Two Chronological Atlas."
• Lutheranism (another good article) doesn't give any heart-warming stories about how much fun the church picnic was, but scholarly or ecuminical examinations of doctrine.
• President of the United States does not cite any autobiographies (because the further reading sections are supposed to be balanced, which would mean outside studies, not subjective anecdotes).
• Poverty reduction only lists "Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Strategic Business Models." It doesn't include, say, the novel Slumdog Millionaire is based on.
• Positive psychology doesn't list any biographical works at all, and there are certainly plenty of biographical works that relate to this subject as much as Wasited Curves does to this.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that neo-victorian is limited to fashion, see this conference on neo-victorianism. From the description and topics list, it looks like the term has broad applications indeed. I'm not sure I understand your point of listing articles with few further reading entries, and I think we've covered the MOS issues already. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The archived discussion on the RSN on whether it is reasonable for a self-published book spammed in by a single purpose account to be in this article, which presumably should involve similar or higher standards than those required of external links (which would exclude such a SPS), is here. Nevard (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you will note that I participated in that discussion. There's no doubt in my mind that the original inclusion was spammy, nor that the link to the web site should be excluded. It does not seem to me that how the book first came to our attention is relevant at this point. Our guide for this issue should be, I think, WP:FURTHER, which does not mention reliability issues, and I think the question is whether or not editors can make the case that the book would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Please note that we are not using the book as a source, and that SPS is part of WP:V, which concerns verifiability of sources. Indeed, were the book a reliable source, we should use it as a source for the article, and not list it in the further reading section. It does seem to me that the book is of sufficient interest to warrant inclusion. But if there are better ones, I'm open to using those instead. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it is highly likely that most of the readers coming to this page will be those who are interested in practicing the fashion of Neo-Victorianism, so a book such as this, which is about a woman's personal experiences with said fashion in modern times, would be of significant interest to our readers. Thus, it clearly fulfills the requirements of WP:FURTHER. Silverseren^C 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Looks like this might be copied from Kevin Roebuck's Mobile Social Networks (ISBN 978-1743046456). Only the last page is available as a preview on Amazon, but the last section almost matches entirely and the reference list is pretty similar too. Permission for this may have been given, but I couldn't see it anywhere.

Thanks for pointing out your concerns! I've looked into it, and Roebuck's book was published in 2011. The content shows signs of having evolved here gradually for years before that; see, for example, 2007. In case that book was a reprint, I've looked through Google's catalogue for the author, and I don't see any book published before 2011. Sadly, this is a pattern. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Neo-victorian Sexual morals

There seems to be no mentioning of the concept of neo-victorian sexual morals. Is that an entirely Scandinavian concept that doesn't translate to english? It refers to the eroding victories of the sexual liberation and a return of shyness of nudity (In many cases from American influence).Carewolf (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Unclear/contradicting definition

The first sentence in the article currently states:

Neo-Victorianism is an aesthetic movement which amalgamates Victorian and Edwardian aesthetic sensibilities with modern principles and technologies.

From this sentence, one would expect a mixture of Victorian and contemporary setting, e.g. people in Victorian attire using modern technology. However, in the following paragraph, examples of works of fiction are mostly set in 19th or early 20th century, without "modern principles and technologies". Only modern thing with these works of fiction is that they were created recently.

So, does "Neo-Victorianism" refer to a mixture of settings, or just a pure Victorian setting but made by modern authors?

So far, the article is unclear and self-contradictory regarding this issue. 94.253.224.238 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that the article, as a whole, contradicts itself. The term refers to more than simply a literary genre or sub-genre, but also to the use of Victorian styles in fashion, modern technology (skeuomorphism), and social attitudes. The literary works to which you refer are set in the Victorian era, but do reflect modern sensibilities.143.71.165.162 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

For the literary works it is indeed sufficient to only be set in a Victorian period and created later to qualify. There is no need for it to even "reflect modern sensibilities", although, being written by modern authors, they might be difficult to avoid. Works that would portray an above-mentioned "mixture" may be considered to be about something neo-Victorian, but a work does not need to be about anything neo-Victorian to be a neo-Victorian work, it can be just set in a plain old "pure Victorian setting".

I did some rearrangement and added a sentence that should hopefully make this clear. Niokog (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Messy Leading Section

The opening of the article starts off by citing a bunch of books that don't seem to be added to any kind of bibliography. It makes for reading it seem like a "to-read" list instead of just mentioning some of the works that are cited. I've done some minor editing on the leading section in an attempt to improve general readability, but I'm afraid that it will need to be rewritten and I'm not entirely familiar with this subject. Perhaps someone who is more comfortable with it, should take a shot at it. DontAskMeAboutThis (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)