Talk:Hammam

Merger?

Obviously the term Turkish bath can also apply to the oriental hamman, not the other way around, so the suggested merger direction is absurd! Does anyone know whether there are other traditions as well? Fastifex 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The suggested merger is not useful because it merges different types of bath, as anyone who had used them would soon realise.

The Victorian Turkish Bath (= the Irish Roman bath) uses a series of increasingly hot rooms to sweat in air which is as dry as possible—go to Harrogate or Baden-Baden; the Islamic hammam is steamy and humid because the dry air is affected by the water used to bathe onself within the hot areas—go to Paris or anywhere where there is an Islamic community; the Russian bath or banya is a hot steam bath (often erroneously called a Turkish bath in the UK)—go to Russia or New York or, if you like plastic boxes, to a health club or hotel; the sauna is initially heated with dry air, to which small quantities of water are added from time to time to give a rush of hot air—go to Scandinavia or your health club or hotel.

The Victorian Turkish Bath and the Islamic Hammam are both derived from the Roman bath which goes back at least as far as Sparta.

For a more detailed discussion, see: http://www.victorianturkishbath.org/_3TOPICS/AtoZTopics/Technology/WetOrDry/WetOrDryEng.htm

---

Certainly the turkish bath and the hammam are one-and-the-same, at least throughout the Middle East. If the Victorian Turkish Bath is different, perhaps the present entry for "Turkish Bath" should be changed to "Victorian Turkish Bath".

---

I do not think that changing the title of this article would leave it improved in any way. In my view there ought to be three separate articles linked by see also refs. These would be: Islamic hammam; Victorian Turkish bath; Russian (steam or vapour} bath. They are, in fact, three very different types of bath. There might also be a see also ref to Sauna.

The Islamic hammam, from the fall of Constantinope till the present time is, or is based on, the Islamic requirement for ritual ablutions on specific occasions, though it is often used for general bathing and socialisation. I am not an expert on these baths but, as I understand it, the use of running water is a necessary requirement—not, as stated in the article, merely to be preferred. One of the few hammams with a pool is at Bursa which is built over a natural spring so that the water is constantly changing. Because bathers wash within the hot rooms, the hot air becomes steamy in use.

The Victorian Turkish Bath is based on the ancient Roman bath and was first revived in 1856 in Ireland (and is, therefore, often called in Germany—and elsewhere on the European continent—the Irish-Roman bath. Very few of these remain, mostly in England, Scotland, and Germany. I know of none which has been built since the late 1970s. The definition which is becoming increasingly recognised is: a type of bath in which the bather sweats freely in a room heated by hot dry air (or in a series of two or three such rooms maintained at progressively higher temperatures), usually followed by a cold plunge, a full body wash and massage (together known as shampooing), and a final period of relaxation in a cooling-room.

Most so-called "Turkish baths" at the present time are actually Russian baths, occasionally based on the stove-heated Russian banya, but more often—especially in hotels and health clubs—comprising a prefabricated plastic self-contained room into which steam is injected. Many hotels and health clubs provide a Finnish sauna in addition to the steam room.

Some of the new baths being built in or near Muslim communities in, for example, London or Liverpool, are called Turkish baths but often have Hammam in their title. These will more often be designed to replicate traditional Islamic hammams.Ishpoloni (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Ishpoloni

I think overall you're pretty much right here. There's a lot of back-and-forth on this talk page about the name and scope of the article, and a lot of it is valid imo. I think a lot of that could be solved by maybe having different pages with each page having links and summary sections about the others, as you mention. There's already been closed debates on this below, but maybe as the article evolves this could be revisited again in the future... R Prazeres (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: I didn't notice the later section below, I've given more comments there now that I've spent a bit of time editing parts of this page. R Prazeres (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

---

I can not find any information confirming the wiki's claim of tellak prostitution, homosexuality, etc in ottoman times.

Merger

(Note to myself.) This was the merge. -- RHaworth 13:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a relation!

Hi there.

From my extensive studies of Turkish culture and history, I vehemently disagree with the notion of tellak homosexuality or prostitution. This article does not source any such claim and thus the homosexuality/prostitution aspect is baseless and might mislead many readers. I will remove it, the LGBT category and consequently the Gay Bathouse wikilink within 5 days (which should prove more than enough time to back up any such claims), because really, they have absolutely no relation! Furthermore, I will edit the Tellak subcategory to reflect the true nature of the position. Unless someone can provide hard facts regarding the occurance of homosexuality in ancient or contemporary hamams. In any case, I assert that the homosexuality claims are entirely false and baseless and were put there by User:Haiduc in the first place, who is a self-proclaimed homosexual paedophile (Pederasty).

Taken from an early version of his user page: "which means that I like to have anal sex with little boys. It is a time-honored tradition that was celebrated in all cultures and in all histories, and it is my mission to reflect that on Wikipedia."

I don't mean to be disrespectful, however, he has made his intentions and goals on wikipedia clear and his claims are false in regards to Turkish hamams and thus must be corrected. Fatih Kurt 14:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where you got that quote but it certainly does not have anything to do with me, was not written by me, and reflects only on the person who contributed it (maybe a vandal?). I find your personal attack completely outside the spirit of this project, and while I have no interest in pursuing the matter with the authorities, as would be correct to do, I will suggest to you that mud slinging is a waste of time for you and everyone else. As for the Turks and their romance with boys, as a local informer told me in Istanbul not so long ago, "we are doctors." Where have you been? Haiduc 16:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Hammams and Homosexuality

I respect your strong feelings on this subject and appreciate your temperance of waiting 5 days before removing references. However there are independent references available as evidence of the contemporary use of some Hammams as spaces for men to have sex with men, so to say that Hammams have "absolutely no relation" to homosexuality or gay bathhouses is incorrect. Some sources below:

1. The book "Closet Space" by Michael P. Brown (ISBN 0415187648) discusses the issue based on experience in the 1990s. Michael Brown notes that "While there were no gay clubs, organisations or bars, there was the hammam...", "It was a place where men could go to have sex with men."
2. This article by Capital Xtra highlights the Istanbul street where a well known bathhouse attracts male sex-workers. See Xtra! for more information on the magazine.
3. This interview with Opoth's Magazine discusses the hammam culture and the problem with rent boys (a profile of Opoth Magazine can be found here).
4. The site IstanbulGay.com (owned by Sunset Travel) notes that "In fact there are few hammams (Turkish baths) worth visiting for gay people, and their prices are twice more than they normally would be, just because they allow gay action. Besides, they are not very well kept or clean."
5. For further evidence I suggest researching arrests occurring in or around hammams for "public exhibitionism," and "offenses against public morality".

Perhaps you could find some published sources to support your point of view and we can include a range of representative sources and reach a neutral point of view that is the stated aim of wikipedia? -- Ashley VH 15:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing to commence soon

I have been in contact with Professor Micheal P. Brown regarding his book "Closet Space", he has told me that he quoted that line from Professor Neil Miller's book "Out in the World". After this referral, I thus naturally inquired to Professor Miller concerning the subject and he has said he has extremely limited knowledge regarding homosexuality in Ottoman Hamams.

I have included the direct and unedited quotes below -

Professor Micheal P. Brown:

“ Fatih,

You should contact Neil Miller, who I think I was quoting, via his book 'Out in the World'. He could be reached through his publisher.

Michael Brown Associate Professor of Geography The University of Washington Box 353550 Seattle, WA USA 98195-3550 Fax: 206-543-3313 michaelb@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/michaelb

”

Professor Neil Miller:

“ Dear Fatih,

I don't know very much about hammams in the Ottomon Empire..., and I'm not sure where exactly in my book Michael Brown found that quote.

If I can help you in any other way, do let me know.

Best Wishes,

Neil Miller

”

Consequently, we can see that both faculty members have little or no factual knowledge concerning homosexuality in Ottoman Hamams. If two professor's (which is a role that is supposed to be the epitome of un-bias & trust) who are experts in LGBT issues don't know anything about the topic, then how can we include the material based on a few sensationalist and extremely biased articles on the internet and a biased magazine? I don't think we can, the facts simply do not support the claims.

It has indeed been 5 days since my original argument, and as promised, I will now edit out the aforementioned areas. Although widespread on the internet as rumour, Ottoman Hamams had nothing to do with homosexuality. I cannot allow for fellow readers and editors to be swayed with false information.

I'll edit out the parts concerning homosexuality now and will update the tellak portion as soon as I have time to write up an accurate paragraph depicting them... and yes, I do have credible, peer reviewed articles concerning them, so there's no need for anybody to be worried.

Sorry I made this so long.

EDIT: For those concerned, I am also going to look for related articles that claim Ottoman Hamams had homosexual behaviour present and edit the content out, based on my claims. Thank you.

Fatih Kurt 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See comments by AshleyVH for rationale for not removing documented material of long standing in the article. Your cited correspondence is of no relevance here. Haiduc 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you still intend to remove the Category:LGBT and reference to Gay bathouse in disregard of the documented use of Hammams by gay sex workers? I'm not sure how you can classify the article by journalist and author Douglas Victor Janoff, and his interviews about gay hate crimes in Turkey as "rumour" or false. Are you also convinced that there have never been arrests for "offences against public morality" due to alleged homosexual activity as a result of people meeting in Hammams? I note that much of the historical information you aim to remove has been published by Lambda, Istanbul on this website. -- Ashley VH 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic tenets encouraged pious muslims to clean the entire body with water ghusl up to 5 times a day. Therefore, hammams were often built as accessories to mosques. Traditionally, the masseurs in the baths, male are called tellak in Turkish while female are called "natir", helped wash clients There is ample evidence the tellak and natir's roles was filled by adult attendants who specialize in more prosaic forms of scrubbing and massage, just like it is today. Their duties were just as washers, not as sex workers. Prostitutes on the other hand are called fahise in turkish, while a brothel is a kerhane, literally place or house of filth. It is illogical that a house of prostitution would be built as an accessory to a mosque, an Islamic house of worship. According to Islamic tenets homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals burn in hell for eternity. See relevant quran verses prphet Lut and the kutubu sitte hadith collection; he Advent of Prophet Lut(Lot): The Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) was contemporary of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him). He was a nephew and follower of the Faith of his uncle. He was the resident of Ur, an ancient town in Mesopotamia God conferred prophethood upon him. "Then the (awful) cry overtook them at the sunrise: And We utterly confounded them, and We rained upon them stones of heated clay. Lo! therein verily are portents for those who read the signs." (15:73-75)

--Kahraman 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the page has drifted away from NPOV when phrases such as "homosexuals burn in hell for eternity" are included on a page not about the concept of sin or the Qur'an? I have reverted to the previous version for this reason. Anonymous user Kahraman, please note that it might be an idea to express your comments more briefly if you want them to be read. Quoting endless paragraphs from the Qur'an is not helpful or collaborative. See Wikipedia:Article development for some tips. -- Ashley VH 10:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for sex does seem flimsy in the extreme (and while there may been some, could blown out of all proportion). At present there are no references. There are NO references given in the text.... The Dellâkname-i Dilküşâ, eighteenth century work by Dervish is unfindable for me. There is another work referenced (though not in respect of this section).... Yılmazkaya, Orhan (2005). Turkish Baths: A Light onto a Tradition and Culture. This book does suggest a bit of sex went on. But not on a scale that justify the text as it stands now. Seem to me that some people want to read this into the baths I will edit softly now ... on the lines... "some believe... " cckkab (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of scholarship, which is in the interests of those on all sides of the issue, where did you actually look for the Dellâkname-i Dilküşâ? It is supposed to be in the Ottoman archives, Sulemaniye, Istanbul. Did you actually go to that library in person? I'm not doubting your scholarship. I'm just curious because "unfindable" is rather vague. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor can I find anything to support the notion that in Turkish the term hamam oğlanı, 'bath boy,' is still used as a euphemism for a homosexual. However some learned native speakers of Turkish can put us on the right track cckkab (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits and added two new sources to support the text. I note that saying "there are no references" failed to recognise those references mentioned in the body of the article rather than just counting footnotes. I suggest if you raise a comment here, you allow a little more time for responses before making major changes.—Ash (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ash, That is great you could find exact references and ISBNs. Well done.

You actually omitted - by oversight I am sure the "references/" section that I had created at the bottom of the page. I reinstated them

I also reinstated the reference of mine that you deleted.

One publisher blurb for the Book of Shehzade says “The book delves into the iove between Adam and Eve, the roots of homosexuality, the warfront between the pederasts and womanizers, bestiality. voyeurism from pimps to horny women, horny transexuais with men... in short, everything you wanten to know about sex but were afraid to ask... sorry, the explicit sexual adventures of those who experienced a myriad ways to get off”. This is not very credible for a 16/17h century book. I think there has to be a suspicion that it was heavily retranslated, reedited and reimagined for a modern audience. But there, we will let it go.

I rewrote

After the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman army in the early 20th century, the role of tellak boys was filled by adult attendants who that scrub and give massage.... giving reference.

“in Turkish the term hamam oğlanı, 'bath boy,' is still used as a euphemism for a homosexual.”. Maybe so.

Suppresion of bath boy = homosexual for lack of reference. Like I said earlier, let’s find authoritative Turkish speakers or sources that can justify that, as I searched, but found none

As for the image “Said to be by the Turkish poet” I reintroduced the qualification, given the lack of any precise reference for the source. I also corrected the poor formatting of the images too. (EDIT button was over text, etc).

Well done again on finding more info on those sources. More work like this is valuable. cckkab (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Europe

Your claim that the section "Introduction of Turkish baths to Europe (The Victorian Turkish bath)" is your copyright is, I submit, ridiculous. The section in question is virtually unchanged from this state of the Turkish bath article dated 2006 May 23. That article has an extensive edit history with multiple editors.

If you really can substantiate your claim, you may do so at Wikipedia:Copyright problems but, in the mean time, any further deletion of the section will result in the article being protected. -- RHaworth 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE Can these two paras be removed. I made the claim many years ago under a complete misunderstanding and have regretted it ever since.Ishpoloni (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Ishpoloni 29 September 2020

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hammam → Turkish bath — Turkish bath is the English name and Hammam is Arabic so i think it needs to be moved to English title. —Bozaci 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Bozaci 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Hammam is not unknown in English; but Turkish bath is more common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - According to this google search Hammam has 3,520,000 ghits, versus 2,170,000 for Turkish. See these links, [1] & [2]. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Try restricting the search results to pages written in English: Turkish bath gets between three and four times as many hits as Hammam that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Note to closing admin - There is a history at Turkish bath of a page that was merged into Hammam on July 6, 2006 (UTC). Therefore, the two page histories ought to be swapped, or the history at Turkish bath moved somewhere else in order to preserve that part of the history for GFDL reasons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Hammam to Turkish bath as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image removed

Why was this image removed? I thought it was quite useful as an illustration. Ashley VH (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Has been put back. Guss2 (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lesbians in my hamman? It's more likely than you think.

In terms of sexual connotations the article seems only to focus on male homosexuality, but what about lesbian encounters in the hammam? To my understanding this is a common phenomenom in the history (and almost certainly also today's culture) of oriental bath houses. Maybe somebody could add some pictures!

HAMMAM and NOT Turkish Bath

Hammam is NOT a Turkish culture, it is Roman, and then the Arabs evolved it, then the Turks took it to the Third level, but a Hammam is NOT Strictly Turkish, their are Hammams in Arab cities that are older than the creation of turkey, or its Islamisation for that matter... in Cairo, Yemen, Damascus, Marrakech (which was never ruled by Turkey, if i may add...)... Arab League User (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Arab League User is right, while Turkish bath maybe Hammam, Hammam is not a Turkish bath. The same principle follows for Arab, Mughal, etc. It's a practice best defined as part of greater Islamic culture that many Muslim countries and nations adopt or create for each other. I suggest renaming the article to simply "Hammam" and paraphrasing it to a more cosmopolitan (Ummah-friendly) tone with heavy emphasis on the Turkish/Ottoman patronage of the tradition. --Humuphile (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

External link to be checked

I advised new user Hurremyamakoglu (talk · contribs) that www.turkishhammams.com might be an acceptable addition to this article. Instead of posting at this talk page to get agreement, the contributor has added it to the article again. I am about to move it down to the proper section, but please remove the link if you think it fails the guidelines. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dellâkname-i Dilküşâ, the curiously disappearing reference

The The Dellâkname-i Dilküşâ by Dervish Ismail Agha is said to be a document in the Ottoman Archives, Sülemaniye, Istanbul, and with this document as a reference it was formerly stated in this article that, "Traditionally, the masseurs in the baths, tellak in Turkish, were young boys, helping the men in washing their bodies. Their duties were not just washers, but also sex workers. We know today, by texts left by Ottoman authors, who they were, their prices, how many times they could bring their customers to orgasm, and the details of their sexual practices. The tellak system died out in the early years of the twentieth century, as a result of the increasing westernization of the Turkish Republic." User:Cckkab states that this document is "unfindable" but doesn't say where he looked. As there are numerous references to it on the web, presumably that is not where he did his research. Did he actually go to the archives in Istanbul. NPOV does not mean suppressing information because it offends one's Muslim, Roman Catholic, fundamentalist or other sensibilities. If someone invented this document, they must have been Turkish or have had an advanced knowledge of Ottoman Turkish. Communicating with English speaking scholars who have never been to Turkey hardly qualifies as conclusive research. Someone needs to do some research in Istanbul, not somewhere in Ireland (or one of the other places Gaelic is spoken). Give us a break!!!! Mike Hayes (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

And yes, as it happens, an article IN TURKISH can be found at Wikiomera It contains a fairly lengthy quotation from the source which is actually hostile to the practices discussed, as being cruel to the youths, with no interest in their personal feelings, but only the gratification of the "client." Mike Hayes (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hygiene

I have just added the section Ancient Roman bathing#Criticism dealing with how Roman thermae could be a pool of warmly kept bacteria and filth with a risk of infection. I was thinking if Turkish baths had a similar problem before modern chlorination and cheap water heating. Was the water changed often, especially in places where water had to be heated artificially? Did somebody complain? --Error (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Section on Morocco

Hi there,

I would like to add a section on public baths in Morocco to this page as part of research I have been conducting for a class. I will also add some information about bathing/public baths in the Islamic context. I hope to finish and post soon and look forward to your input!

Smithkristin6 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)smithkristin6

Go for it! Hafspajen (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Turkish bath → Hamman – Hamman is the proper name and the article is predominantly about Ḥammāns also the fact the word is Arabic is not an issue as we call a Jewish bath (which doesn't even exist as a REDIRECT but can be found on Google search) a Mikveh here and Mikveh is certainly not an English word. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator my reason is in the nomination. The Random Editor and Humuphile were supportive of this naming. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME. Based on Google Books non-usage I doubt almost anyone has heard of a Hamman. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The common English term is "Turkish bath", regardless of whether it is considered Turkish or not. It looks like there's a history of disputes about the precise boundary of this article's scope, and whether it should include some things that might also be called a Roman bath - but if the scope needs to be refined, that can be done by editing the page. There's no need to move it to a term not commonly used in English. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do mention the naming HAMMAN in the article. But since this is the English version of the Wikipedia it should be the most common English term we use. If the word is Arabic is Jewish bath that maybe should be mentioned, by the way. True, the Mikveh is certainly not an English word, but I think it has to do with accessibility. The mikweh is a bath with religious significance, and none who is not part of that religion will be allowed in. The Turkish bath is a more generous bath, other people from other religions were tolerated, thus its popularity. I have been in a Turkish bath but never ever in a mikweh. Hafspajen (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apart from the fact that it's "hamam" and not "hammam", "Turkish bath" is the common name in English, which is how we title articles. The comment on Mikveh is a complete red herring, of course, as these baths are called "mikveh" in English and are almost never known as "Jewish baths" (they are of course used for ritual and not relaxation purposes). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Word count of named topic and dictionary entries about this topic

Hammam - 156 uses

Turkish bath - 89 uses.

Why is the article topic word referenced only 57% as much as a supposed synonym for the topic? At one point in the article it makes a clear distinction between the two (cooling pool and dry versus steamy air) so they are not synonyms and so it casts doubt if all the 156 uses are correct.

Dictionary.com makes hammam the global word in English for all public bathhouses[3]and relegates Turkish bath to a specific example of hammam[4] with specific behaviors (a type of bath in which the bather sweats freely in hot dry air, is then washed, often massaged, and has a cold plunge or shower). This treatment differs from Merriam but is significant as it is where English speakers might go(including myself) to look up these topics. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this nonsensical paragraph meant to mean?

There is a nonsensical paragraph in the opening sectioin:

"'The discovery that was lost and has been found again, is this, in the fewest possible words: The application of hot air to the human body. It is not wet air, nor moist air, nor vapoury air; it is not vapour in any shape or form whatever. It is an immersion of the whole body in hot common air.'

If someone could rewrite that to make sense, that would be good. Otherwise it should be deleted. Zythophile (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph is apparently a direct quote. I cannot verify it, but if it is then it should not be rephrased, rewritten or paraphrased ExpatSalopian (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph comes from a lecture which was later published as: Thudichum, [Dr] J L W 'The Turkish bath' Transactions of the Royal Medical Society (1861) p.40 The description starting 'The application of hot air…' is one which was recognised by Dr Richard Barter and David Urquhart who were resposible for introducing this bath into the British Isles in 1856, and was generally agreed by all their followers. This is a good description of the Victorian Turkish bath. Ishpoloni (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)ishpoloni

Advertising references

One of the references in this article leads only to an advertisement for a commercial establishment. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am interested to know whether this is normally accepted practice.Ishpoloni (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Ishpoloni

Name and meaning

This article is partly very misleading. While in the English language Middle Eastern bathhouses are known as "Turkish baths", the baths are not particularly Turkish. Hammams are an integral part of the entire Muslim culture and the Turkish culture is just one part of it. Ottoman bathhouses were not much different from bathhouses in the Arab or Iranian societies. Claiming that Hamams are "the Turkish variant of bathhouses" is very misleading.

See also this excellent academic article in Encyclopaedia Iranica about bathhouses in Iran and surrounding areas: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bathhouses

This article needs a neutrality and factual accuracy check!

--Lysozym (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No factual check can be anywhere near 100% ‘accurate’ when a term such as ‘Turkish bath’ has legitimately meant different things to different groups at different times, over a long period.

And while no check can be 100% neutral either, I will, as a fresh starter for discussion, attempt to indicate the main hot-air baths which still exist, and describe them so as to indicate their differences, after which I will suggest what articles I believe are needed in Wikipedia.

Baths can be taken in any medium, including such as milk or sunlight. Those that concern us here are baths in hot dry air, baths in vapour or steam, and baths using a combination of both. Most of these have evolved from the baths used in ancient Rome, and even earlier, when a whole range of baths—hot and dry—were widely used. The three groups which follow indicate those types which are most common today. Excluded are the sweat lodge found in Ireland and the Americas, and hot water baths such as the Sento of Japan, both of which are (correctly) separately treated in Wikipedia.

1. The hammam (hamam, or other variant spellings)

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Roman bath survived, being adapted, and then adopted, by the Muslim ottoman conquerors. Cleanliness and ritual bathing, but not public nakedness, are intrinsic to Islam, and the Islamic bath, known as the hammam, is a felicitous combination of the religious bathing tradition of the Muslim, and the elaborate bathing procedures of the Romans.

A typical hammam includes a warm room, a hot room, and a steam room, with washing facilities, dressing rooms, space for shampooing (often on a raised, marble-covered platform in one of the hot rooms), and areas for relaxation and refreshment. The Roman cold plunge or swimming pool is normally omitted because many Muslims consider that still water (which is, by definition, stagnant water) is ritually unclean, just as Jews require running water for their ritual bath, the mikveh. Where hammams do have a pool as, for example, at Bursa, it is because they can be fed by a natural spring so that the water is constantly changing.

Hammams are to be found wherever there are Muslim communities, and are becoming increasingly popular around the world in day spas, and the more expensive hotels.

Because water is used in the hot rooms, the heat is always humid and often steamy.

2. The Russian steam bath (vapour bath, or banya)

The Russian bath is intended for personal cleansing and for relaxation.

Although they were originally huts or internal rooms constructed in wood, heated by the use of steam or vapour, most such baths today are stand-alone indoor rooms constructed in plastic. They frequently include a shower hose to flush down the seats. Russian baths are increasingly popular in leisure centres, health clubs, and hotels as they are relatively inexpensive to operate and easy to maintain.

The heat is always steamy.

3. The Victorian Turkish bath

The Victorian Turkish bath dates from 1856 and was originally intended for personal cleansing and therapeutic use, only later becoming popular for relaxation.

The body can withstand dry heat at a greater temperature than wet heat, and because the higher temperatures were found to be more effective both in cleansing the body and therapeutically (for example, in alleviating the pain of complaints such as gout or rheumatism) the hot air in the bath was as dry as the technology of the day allowed.

The typical Victorian Turkish bath comprised a number of interconnected hot rooms (usually three, each hotter than the previous one), a cooling-room, showers and perhaps a plunge pool. Later, some establishments additionally provided a steam room, but this was not part of the Victorian Turkish bath process, and was located as far as possible from the dry rooms. Hot air baths had long disappeared in England prior to 1856. When developed in Ireland and Britain in 1856-7 they were initially called Turkish baths because that was how contemporary travellers and travel writers traditionally called the hammams they had seen, mainly in Ottoman Turkey. But from the start, what has increasingly been called the Victorian Turkish bath during the past two decades, was quite different from the hammam.

Although there were hundreds of Victorian Turkish baths opened between 1856 and 1967, both here, in the then British Empire, and beyond (for example in the USA and Germany), today there are only 12 remaining in England and Scotland, and a very few abroad (for example in the Friedrichsbad in Baden-Baden, Germany).

The heat is always dry.

4. The (Finnish) sauna

Long established in Finland and Scandinavia, the sauna only arrived in the UK after World War II, and has become increasingly popular. The sauna is intended for personal cleansing and for relaxation, though it can also be used therapeutically and in childbirth.

The air is heated by a stove which initially produces hot dry air. Bathers then periodically add dripping water to the stove until the humidity is increased to the preferred level.

Like the Russian steam room, the sauna is increasingly popular in leisure centres, health clubs, and hotels as it is relatively inexpensive to operate and easy to maintain.

The humidity of the hot air in the sauna is continually adjusted to suit requirements.

Removing ambiguity

All the above types of bath, with the exception of the sauna (which correctly has its own article in Wikipedia), have at some time or other been called Turkish baths, leading to confusion and, increasingly, culture-related arguments about terminology and purpose. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest that there are three inter-related articles in Wikipedia.

1. Hammam

With redirections from: alternative spellings; Turkish bath

With see also references to: Russian steam bath; Victorian Turkish bath

2. Victorian Turkish bath

With redirections from: Turkish bath

With see also references to: Hammam

3. Russian steam bath

With redirections from: banya; Russian bath; steam bath; vapour bath

With see also references to: Hammam; Victorian Turkish bath

Ishpoloni (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Ishpoloni

In short, I agree with the above. I'm aware a move debate occurred in 2014 and was closed, but I think that debate is incomplete and should be revisited. Here are some other points I think should be considered:

1. "Turkish bath" is a clear term in a Western context only, because of course there's nothing else it can refer to. However, most of this article is about the important and common bathhouse institution in the historic and contemporary Islamic world, which is a very large topic on its own, and in that context using the term "Turkish bath" is very problematic, as they neither originate from Turkish culture nor are limited to areas of Turkish influence, and that term just isn't really used in this context. Talking about "Turkish baths" in Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, etc would be confusing or misleading. Even in common travel literature you find "hammam" or "hamam" being regularly used (quick examples from Lonely Planet here or here, or the Rough Guide, Fodor's, etc). Or in Spain, for that matter, the term "Arab baths" is commonly used.
2. Additionally, scholarly sources do not use the term "Turkish bath" to refer to bathhouses in the Islamic world. They always use the term "hammam", "baths" or "bathhouse" (e.g. have a look at some of the references already on this page). "Bathhouse" is obviously too broad as a title here, but "Hammam" is perfectly clear and unambiguous. (For locations and persons with the same name, there's already a convenient disambiguation page here which could be adapted and linked to.)
3. Almost all pages about specific hammams on Wikipedia also use the term "Hammam" or the equivalent cognate (look up relevant entries under the public baths category).
4. If part of the objection is that a term like "hammam" is too unnatural when referring to Victorian-style Turkish baths in the West (which I agree), then I think the solution, as suggested above, is to move the Victorian version to its own page (Victorian Turkish baths), just as there is already a separate page for Banya (sauna). In fact, I think this is warranted regardless of any name change here, so I'm going to do that now by just copy-editing the relevant material to a new page.

So as per WP:CRITERIA, "Hammam" is more precise, more consistent, and reasonably recognizable for this topic (with relevant redirects and links to help readers find the specific topic they want). R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

But the usual English term is certainly "Turkish bath"; "ham[m]am" is known to linguists and scholars of Islamic culture. Policy is to use such WP:COMMONNAMEs where they exist, so the name should not be changed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree of course, but it does seem that other editors also keep bringing up this disagreement so it's worth discussing. I'm not convinced that "Turkish bath" is the normal term for this actual topic. Just Googling "Turkish bath" (even with Google Books), for example, doesn't clarify much since a lot of hits will be about various spas, general wellness topics, or about Western Turkish baths, which aren't necessarily what this page is about. And "hammam" is not as obscure as some other comments on this talk page have suggested since, as I mentioned, it's commonly used in English-language travel literature and it even comes up fairly easily on English-language commercial sites and news articles. It's also accepted as a synonym in at least some major dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster or Cambridge). So it's not fair to dismiss it as being an academic term.

In any case, all naming criteria need to be considered together, and from what I can see WP:COMMONNAME is a compliment to those criteria, not the main criteria. As per that same policy (WP:COMMONNAME), Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above" (my emphasis). As per WP:SOURCE, academic sources are the most reliable sources, and the academic literature on this topic do not use the term "Turkish bath". (I'll nonetheless note that scholarly health literature does use this term a lot, because it doesn't require that precision, but that it also uses hammam and that it isn't the primary literature relevant to this topic.) So from what I can see so far, both WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME could easily support a name change. There are other cases where a more strictly English term is not used for topics because it's not clear or precise enough (e.g. madrasa or kasbah instead of "(Islamic) school" or "citadel", etc). R Prazeres (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkish bath. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814082956/http://www.cyberbohemia.com/Pages/Islahammam.htm to http://www.cyberbohemia.com/Pages/Islahammam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120043953/http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/asia/india/hyderabad/33213/golconda-fort/attraction-detail.html to http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/asia/india/hyderabad/33213/golconda-fort/attraction-detail.html

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) 02:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The word Hammam is neither Arabic nor Turkish. It's an Amazigh / Berber word.

Hammam, which means hot in Tamazight (berbere) and hot in Arabic is said Skhoun. So please return to Caesar what belongs to him and correct your article by replacing Arabic by Amazigh, without the presence of the Arabic alphabet.

Hot baths in North Africa existed long before the appearance of Arabs and Turks in the history of mankind.

Already Wikipedia is losing much of its credibility, if such coarse manipulations persist this would be the end of this site very useful for schoolchildren. --Adbouz (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you provide a reliable source to back this up? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The word hammām (Arabic: حمّام) is clearly Arabic, from the verb حمّ meaning to heat. إيان (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move as "Hammam" more precisely defines the article scope and is common in English-language reliable sources. Proposal to change the redirect target of "Turkish bath" should be done with a RfD discussion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Turkish bath → Hammam – "Turkish bath" is inaccurate. To repeat a point raised by R Prazeres, "Hammam" is more precise, more consistent, and reasonably recognizable for this topic (with relevant redirects and links to help readers find the specific topic they want and should be used per WP:CRITERIA. This is an institution that developed in places such as Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. independently of the Turks. إيان (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. (Unsurprisingly.) It might be overkill, but I'll compile here some of the remarks I already made in the "Name and meaning" topic above:

1. "Turkish bath" is maybe a clear term in a Western context because it can't really refer to anything else, but this article is about the bathhouse institution in the historic and contemporary Islamic world, which is a very large topic on its own. In that context using the term "Turkish bath" is very problematic as they neither originate from Turkish culture nor are limited to areas of Turkish influence. There are many contexts where the term simply isn't used in English or otherwise; e.g. talking about "Turkish baths" in Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, etc is confusing or misleading, no matter how common it may be in other contexts.
2. Scholarly sources do not use the term "Turkish bath" to refer to bathhouses in the Islamic world. They always use the term "hammam", "baths" or "bathhouse" (e.g. have a look at some of the references already on this page). "Bathhouse" is obviously too broad as a title here, but "Hammam" is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
3. Even in English commercial websites, news articles, and travel literature you find "hammam" or "hamam" being regularly used (quick examples from Lonely Planet here or here, or the Rough Guide, Fodor's, etc). "Hammam" is also accepted as a synonym in major English dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Oxford). (Note: edited after posting to add OED example.)
4. People have invoked WP:COMMONNAME to justify the current title, but all naming criteria need to be considered together and WP:COMMONNAME is a compliment to WP:CRITERIA, not the main criteria. As per that same policy (WP:COMMONNAME), Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above" (my emphasis). As per WP:SOURCE, academic sources are the most reliable sources, and the academic literature on this topic does not use the term "Turkish bath". So both WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME can easily support this change.
5. For that matter, Googling the number of results for "Turkish bath" doesn't clarify much since a lot of hits are about various spas, general wellness topics, or about Western Turkish baths, which aren't what this page is about, and again doesn't reflect usage in reliable sources.
6. Almost all pages about specific hammams on Wikipedia also use the term "Hammam" or the equivalent cognate (look up relevant entries under the public baths category). There are also other cases on Wikipedia where a more strictly English term is not used for topics because it's not clear or precise enough (e.g. madrasa or kasbah instead of "(Islamic) school" or "citadel", etc).

In short, it's much easier to redirect "Turkish bath" to "Hammam" and have it mentioned as an English synonym in the opening line, than it is to clarify to readers in the lead section of a "Turkish bath" page that the name "Turkish bath" does not actually imply a primarily Turkish institution and to then go on and use "hammam" across the rest of the page anyways (as is necessary for the page's content to be clear). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH, same as the previous RM discussions. The most common name of this topic in English is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Drawing your attention to point 3 from the arguments R Prazeres laid out above:

3. "Even in English commercial websites, news articles, and travel literature you find "hammam" or "hamam" being regularly used (quick examples from Lonely Planet here or here, or the Rough Guide, Fodor's, etc). "Hammam" is also accepted as a synonym in major English dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Oxford). (Note: edited after posting to add OED example.)" إيان (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not in response to this comment alone, but in general: if you invoke WP:COMMONNAME, it would be much appreciated if you could demonstrate that this term is regularly used in reliable published sources relevant to this topic, and that these sources are referring also to bathhouses beyond the Ottoman world or beyond those in Europe and North America (the latter have their own page at Victorian Turkish bath). Otherwise these one-line invocations of WP:COMMONNAME could be well-intentioned but misleading with regards to the actual policy. R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The DAB page works well. Making this PTOPIC would be a guaranteed way of accumulating bad links, difficult to find and fix. I patrol Disambiguation pages with links, and there's often a link to DAB page Hamam in the list (there was one today). Further, Hamaam and Hamam (and possibly others) are common alternative spellings. Retargetting those to a PTOPIC would make the problem worse. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH and WP:AINTBROKE also apply. Narky Blert (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposal is to redirect "Hammam", not necessarily all the others. ("Hamam" is a common spelling because of modern Turkish but I've never seen "hamaam" or anything else in published sources.) More importantly, all the "Hammam/Hamam" names on the DAB (with the exception maybe of surnames) are etymologically or topically derived from this baths/water/heat meaning of "Hammam", so if anything there's a strong argument for this being the primary page as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in which case this page should simply include a header link to the DAB for other uses. R Prazeres (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. My initial thought was to oppose, but then I reconsidered. This article is indeed about the traditional hammam, which is mostly now referred to using that word even in English-language sources. The English phrase is these days only usually used to refer to the Victorian Turkish bath, which has its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Very well said. If I were allowed to rewrite wp:closing I'd authorise closers to take on board !votes like this one and just say, that's unanswerable, speedy close on those terms. It might save a lot of time... or not. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The name Hammam for this specific sort of Turkish bath ticks all the boxes. And there is more work to do... the DAB at Turkish Bath (disambiguation) needs some MOSifying for a start. What we want to end up with is a single well-constructed DAB as the destination of both Turkish bath and Turkish Bath, so that all editors who misslink to those terms (there will be many owing to the evident ambiguity) get warned of their mistake, and Wikignomes get informed of those mistakes that the contributors don't fix. The DAB currently at Hamman needs to move too of course. And it has a few (very few) incoming links that should be corrected. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thessaloniki Pasha Hamam

To best of my knowledge this Hamam is only open for temporary art etc exhibitions and doesn't have a permanent exhibition of finds from Metro excavations (although would be lovely if it did). I was last there in 2018 and never found it open at all. Maybe someone has more recent information? Ealinggirl1954 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Turkey's hot springs

At the moment there is a piece in the section on Turkish hamams about the country's hot springs. IMO these aren't 'hamams' in the usual understanding of the word - in Turkish they are usually called kaplıcas rather than hamams in recognition of that fact. Would be better to have a new page for them - Hor springs in Turkey? - with a cross-ref at the bottom of the hamam page. Ealinggirl1954 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

They can certainly be additionally covered in another article with more details there, especially as this section is meant only as a summary. But those locations do include hammam structures and architecture, per the cited sources, so they're relevant here as is. R Prazeres (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Turkish baths in the Western world

To someone like me with absolutely minimal of knowledge of the Islamic hammam, this article seems to be first class in providing all the information one could wish for as a first introduction to the subject——with one exception, the hammam in the western world. I don't know whether any of the recently built mosques in the UK, for example, have hammams attached, but perhaps there should be an indication of whether this is so or not. Neither do I know whether it would be appropriate to include in this area something about the many hot-air baths based on the hammam which are burgeoning, certainly in the UK, and probably also elsewhere in Europe. These could be standalone hammams such as the one in Liverpool, or the many in hotels around the country. But whether or not appropriate, they would seem to have more connection to the Islamic hammam than the Victorian Turkish bath (VTb).

At present all that appears in this section is a duplicate of the text currently comprising most of the text of the VTb page. This is almost totally unrelated to the hammam, the VTb being basically a 19th century Irish version of the ancient Roman hot dry air baths. All that is needed in the Hammam page is a 'see also' reference the VTb page.

So unless anyone has any serious objection I propose removing the irrelevant text and image, apart from the heading and reference, and hope that anyone with information about the modern hammams in the west will add some helpful material. Ishpoloni (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend not removing that section entirely, because there is a historical link between the Victorian Turkish baths and the Islamic baths, and I see no problem in having a summary of that topic here per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It could be further condensed to more general details, however, as the other article is comprehensive enough that we don't need much here.

I agree that it would be good to update the article with information about both the role of hammams in modern mosques, including those in the Western world. If I have time in the future, I'll try to look up more precise details about this. My understanding is that ablutions facilities of one kind or another are pretty common in modern mosques, but I don't think traditional steam hammams are nearly as common. R Prazeres (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with a summary replacement. I'll have a think about what might be substituted and get back in due course. The link is an important one but, possibly, factually different from what it is commonly thought to be.

I'm really interested to know that ablution facilities are common in modern mosques (as I would expect) but I'm sure that this is not widely known to those outside Islamic communities.

But I'm puzzled by your use of the term "traditional steam hammam". I have always understood (and am happy to be corrected) that the hammam as developed in the conquered Eastern Roman Empire was originally a hot dry air bath. However, because pools were omitted (non-running water) bathers washed within the hot areas inevitably making the atmosphere humid and steamy. Is this what you also understand? Or were some hammams directly fed by steam as in a modern plastic steam room? Ishpoloni (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't take my wording there too seriously; I'm familiar with the architecture and the general cultural/historical context, but there are certainly technical aspects I'm less versed in. From a quick search, various sources do say "steam" ([5], [6], [7]), but I'm not sure if that's actually the fundamental working principle. When I researched this topic before, references always agreed that the traditional hammam worked by a hypocaust system, which I don't think really implies steam for the bathers themselves (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'd have to read more. Another thing to potentially clarify in this article. R Prazeres (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are 100% right about the hypocaust tending to preclude steam. And I think the page views I was able to get from Google Books of the three titles you mentioned just use the term loosely, as many people do. Though I'm not over impressed with the part definition of a hammam as a swimming pool (Dictionary of Islam). Newspapers can't resist the term 'getting all steamed up' in a Turkish bath. But I've just had a quick flick through Meunier's Hammams and Hammaming in the Sham by Boggs and not found any instance of a steam outlet, in fact very few of their images show any sort of haze—but that may be for the photographer's convenience. Ishpoloni (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again R Prazeres. Now that the Victorian Turkish bath page is becoming more comprehensive—I'm giving it a rest at the moment till the redirects are sorted out—it seems to me that the Hammam page Section 'Turkish baths in the Western world' is even more out of place, having no obviously real connection with the subject of the page. I'm very wary of getting involved in hammams as I know so little about them, but I have been working on a draft which might be considered a suitable replacement for the current section pro tem because (a) it deals with Western Europe rather than the Western world, (b) it shows what the connection originally was between the two subjects, and (c) it might hopefully spur on someone with more knowledge than I have to improve, rewrite, or shorten it. The draft is here User:Ishpoloni/sandbox but I don't know if you can read this, so if you are unable to see it, do let me know how to get it to you.Ishpoloni (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on what is currently written there and at Victorian Turkish baths, I think there's a good connection between the two topics to maintain a section on it here; the difference being of course that this should only summarize information that is now expanded upon elsewhere. I would recommend that, aside from any generic improvements, the section should probably focus on briefly establishing the historical connection/influence between the Islamic baths and the 19th-century Western baths, as well as perhaps summarizing the differences between them. That would give readers a nice intro/outro between these two topics.

I can see your sandbox, yes. I'll leave a brief comment there. I think it looks good overall, maybe it could be even shorter if you feel that's reasonable, or try to incorporate it into the existing section here, if the latter still has some reliable content. Any stuff about modern mosques in Europe could perhaps be a new subsection under "Regional examples of hammams", as I assume those are just extensions of the Islamic hammams, imported with modern migrants. R Prazeres (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Chewing this over. Thanks. Ishpoloni (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see that it may well be important to retain a section here showing the connection between the two baths and I have limited this to Europe rather than the 'Western world', and changed it from being a summary of Victorian Turkish baths into a section showing the historical relationship between the two baths, so the original draft has now been shortened by about a third following your excellent suggestion. The western European section will only be fully effective, of course, when consensus is reached and the Turkish bath(s) redirect can be changed into the DAB which so clearly and succinctly leads readers to whichever of the two baths is being sought. Then only the VTb sections on the architecture, cultural connections, and use of the bath by animals (and possibly the bath in private homes) have been completed. Ishpoloni (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for replacing the See also. Much better. Ishpoloni (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just made a couple of minor changes to the third sentence in this section, and in doing so confirmed my continung agreement with R Prazeres's earlier view that this section should not be deleted.

There are two or three further changes I would like to suggest:

a. the deletion of the following, which does not seem relevant: 'Before that, the United States, like many other places, had several Russian baths, one of the first being that opened in 1861 by M. Hlasko at his "natatorium" at 219 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia.'

Or, at the very least, stop the sentence after the thirteenth word.

b. I think it would be better to change the image in this section so as to show the interior of a Victorian Turkish bath rather than just the outside of an interesting entrance kiosk. There are many interiors to choose from.

c. The final two references, 118 & 119, only lead to two advertisements, which I thought Wikipedia disallowed—and I suspect that this may have been the reason why the image referred to in (b) above was originally included, although it is just as likely to have been a coincidence.Ishpoloni (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The Hammam and Victorian Turkish Bath articles

It is now some time since the article on the Hammam was complemented by a separate article on the Victorian Turkish bath—to distinguish between the two and provide a separate history of the latter. I am currently working 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 article on the Hammam. I will, of course be looking 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.

To this end I have given some advance notice of what I propose and a plan of which areas will be amended first. I have invited comments from all those with an interest in this subject. The current situation appears on the Talk page of the Victorian Turkish bath article, and to avoid unnecessary duplication will not be repeated on this page. I hope this will prove satisfactory and look forward to a healthy discussion with all those interested in the subject. Ishpoloni (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hammams and the Bathing article

In the article on Bathing, the section on Hot-air baths had the Main article reference as Victorian Turkish baths. It seemed to me that this was only true in the West and certainly not in the Islamic World. I have therefore added Hammam as an equivalent second main article, with the introductory paragraphs from Hammam added as summary. I hope this is in order.Ishpoloni (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Turkish bath" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Turkish bath has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § Turkish bath until a consensus is reached. R Prazeres (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about "Turkish baths" redirect

I am totally puzzled. Please can someone explain to me—preferably without Wikipedia jargon—why the article Turkish Baths, Lincoln Place has not been diverted to Hammam but correctly allowed to stand (because it is a specific example of a hot-air bath building totally different in appearance and purpose from those described in the article Hammam), yet the heading "Turkish baths" (the outdated general term for all those hot-air bath buildings which are different in appearance and purpose from those described in the article Hammam) was seamlessly and incorrectly diverted to Hammam instead of correctly to Turkish_Bath_(disambiguation) so that searchers could immediately be given the choice of whether to go to Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths without an intermediate page which was possibly just standing in the way? Apologies for length of sentence.Ishpoloni (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I'm afraid I've felt the need to revert again. As R Prazeres notes, the retained source states that Turkish is erroneous ("a misnomer"). This is not a matter of etymology but fact, and further evidence is available from a wide range of sources. Apologies for my earlier lengthy reversion note which should, of course, have been on the talk page. Unfortunately it seems that not all reverters read the talk page or the reasons previously given. However, the qualification being discussed needs to be in the lead if that is where the frequent error is; if we remove the error, there is no need for a qualification. The previously suggested compromise addition of "often" has been retained in the hope that we can now leave this subject.

There is an alternative approach. Hammams and Victorian Turkish baths are completely different subjects, not synonyms (Read the articles if you doubt this.) Separate significant articles require to be directly entered under the names of their subjects, not under one of them, with the addition of the equivalent of a "see also" reference. Because "Turkish baths" has in the past been widely used for both hammams and Victorian Turkish baths, the term Turkish baths should now, both logically and according to Wikipedia guidance notes, be redirected to Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This allows searchers to immediately choose which article is being sought, not lead to a completely different subject and only then being redirected to the disambiguation page and, incidentally, but most importantly, actually lead searchers away from what they seek.

If this change were made then it might not be so important to emphasize (in the lead) the historical error of suggesting that the hammam is a Turkish innovation rather than an intrinsic part of Islamic culture. The point could then be appropriately made in the body of the article. Ishpoloni (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)