Talk:Hammam

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)

@Macrakis, @Ishpoloni: reminder to use the talk page to discuss disagreements rather than edits. I believe we came to compromise and consensus with this earlier edit. If editors want to object to this, then at this point they need to start communicating here rather than going back and forth in the lead. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for using edit which, if under the word limit, I mistakenly thought was used as a courtesy indication of why something was being changed or reverted. But on several article talk pages I've made explanations and asked specific questions but no one seems to read them, except the dedicated few. I thank you for the kindness of your rebuke and always look forward to your comments.Ishpoloni (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

---

@R Prazeres: Quite right -- I should have checked the Talk page before editing. I apologize.

So let me re-open the question of the wording of the first sentence.

There are two issues here:

I understand that there are two things that are often called "Turkish baths" -- the hammam as found across the Islamic world (not just Turkey); and luxurious bathhouses in the West inspired by hammams, built mostly in the 19th century. Clearly they are related, but different. Amusingly, one 19th-century book on the design of Turkish baths actually says "Since the revival of the bath of antiquity, and its introduction into this country under the name of the Turkish bath..." -- that is, it doesn't even mention the Middle Eastern influence, despite the name.The Turkish Bath: Its Design and Construction, 1890

The question here is how to characterize the name "Turkish bath" in the lead of this article.

I think it's unquestionable that the name "Turkish bath" has often been used to name hammams. For example, the translation of Çerkesseyhizade Halil Halit's The Diary of a Turk (1903), does use the term "hammam" 3 times, but also uses the term "Turkish bath" 11 times. It compares the English Turkish bath and the hammam:

"Is the Turkish bath known in Turkey ?" This curious question is not infrequently put to travellers from the East by English people. It is true that there is not much resemblance between the external appearance and management of the so-called Turkish bath in England and those of the hammam in Turkey.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Diary_of_a_Turk/jpYCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&kptab=editions

and then goes on to use "Turkish bath" for the rest of the book (note that it is the English version that he calls "so-called").

I do not know what the Turkish text of the book used, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we use the English term.

Western travelers in Turkey, Syria, etc. also called the baths Turkish baths.[1]

Modern writers also call them "Turkish baths" as well as ham(m)am".[2][3]

OK, so now that we've established that "Turkish bath" is used in English, how should we qualify it?

The footnote for the phrase "also often called a Turkish bath by Westerners" gives some history. After mentioning that "nowadays, Arabs often refer to baths as "Turkish baths" or "Hammam Turki", ..." and that "globally, the term Turkish bath has taken off andis used to name old as well as contemporary baths", the author says that this is a "misnomer", pointing out that the Ottomans generally considered the word "Turk" to be pejorative. Note that she does not say "by Westerners", but "globally", and even gives an Arabic example.

So we have now established that the term is used world-wide, although it was not used historically.

Now of course it can be objected that the "Turkish bath" is not uniquely a Turkish (or Ottoman) phenomenon. Which is true.

But we have lots of cases in Wikipedia where we use the common modern name of things, even if it is partial or misleading.

For example, the strained yogurt article mentions the alternate name "Greek yogurt". The Nephrops norvegicus article mentions the alternate names "Norway lobster" and "Dublin Bay prawn", although it is found from Iceland to Portugal (and also in the Adriatic). Turkish Taffy was invented in New Jersey (although the rights to it were later acquired by a Sephardic Jew from İzmir). Chinese checkers is of German origin. Welsh rabbit is probably not from Wales.

In most of these cases, the body of the article makes the origin of the name clear, but in none of them is there an apologetic explanation in the lead.

So I see no reason to apologetically and pedantically write "also often called a Turkish bath by Westerners". It is enough to say "or Turkish bath" and then perhaps at the end of the lead write: "Public and private baths inspired by hammams became popular in northern Europe and the Americas in the 19th century; see Victorian Turkish bath." --Macrakis (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Another amusing example: Roman collars don't come from Rome and weren't invented by the Catholic church, but by a Scottish Presbyterian.

Then there's Pacific Dover sole, which isn't from Dover and isn't a sole (its eyes are on the other side, so it's a flounder). The lead simply says "It takes its name from a resemblance to the common sole of Europe, which is often called Dover sole." without characterizing its name as a misnomer or saying that that name is used only in the Western US (which might be worth mentioning...). --Macrakis (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)