Talk:List of most-visited museums/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Forbidden City/National Palace Museum

Dear Viztor, I have removed the National Palace Museum (or Forbidden City from this list, because it is not listed as a museum in the traditional sense in either the Themed Entertainment Association list of most visited museums, or the Art Newspaper List, which are the main sources for this article. It is, however, listed number one in the List of Most Visited Monuments and Palaces, along with the Palace of Versailles, Parthenon, and other important national monuments. Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Dear @SiefkinDR: I appreciate your argument, though I find it hard to be convinced. the Palace of Versailles is not a museum, nor is Parthenon, likewise, the Old Summer Palace is not a museum, so it should not be on the list. If something suits one definition, does not mean it can not suits another. But it is not the case for the Palace Museum, which comprises of 1,807,558 artifacts: The Forbidden city is only a part of its collection, though it is the largest, that does not mean the Palace Museum is not a museum, by all criteria, it is.

Not only does it host exhibitions of its only collection, occasionally of collections of other museums like the Louvre, which so happens to be a former palace as well. In which case, by your criteria, the Louvre should not be on the list as well.

Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional sense". And I'm curious too as to why the Art Newspaper and the Themed Entertainment Association does not include the Palace Museum on their list. But that is not for me to speculate. The Palace Museum is a museum, and it is hosted in the Forbidden City.

BTW, the National Palace Museum refers to the one in Taipei, which is included in all three lists, and the Palace Museum refers to the one in Beijing, which as of right now, is only included in the "Palace" list.Viztor (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Viztor: Thanks very much for your comments. By museum in the traditional sense, I mean "a building in which objects of historical, artistic , or cultural interest are displayed." (Oxford English Dictionary). That describes all the museums on the list, but doesn't very accurately describe the Forbidden City, just because of its size. It may very well describe the Palace Museum in Beijing.

Do you know why there is no article on the Palace Museum in Beijing on Wikipedia? Is it a single building, or does it include all of the buildings in the Foribidden City?

In a way, the Forbidden City may be more comparable to the National Mall in Washington, a large area with a dozen museums and monuments, which altogether get about 20 million visitors a year. Or the Grand Palace in Bangkok, which gets about thirteen million visitors a year. Or the Parthenon and the Roman Forum, which both include museums, but are not themselves called museums.

The article, like all Wikipedia articles, needs an objective,neutral source, which uses the same criteria to rank museums around the world. At the moment, the only two organizations that do that annually are the Themed Entertainment Association Museum Index, and the Art Newspaper annual list of museum attendance, which are both often cited in the press. That's why they're used here. I will check with them and ask why they didn't include the Palace Museum in Beijing. But the first priority, I think, should be for someone to write a Wikipedia article about it. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Collections of the Palace Museum has existed since 2007. Did you receive a response from either organization? Cobblet (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cobblet, No, I haven't received any response yet. They're not very good at getting back to questions, but this is their busy season. The new list of the of the TEA Museum Index will be coming out next month, which includes all kinds of museums, and we'll see what's on it. I don't think any museum should be in the list which is not in at least one of the major international listings.

The article on the Collections of the Palace Museum doesn't say where these collections are displayed. Are they in a single building, or spread around? This article currently uses the definition if a museum given in the Oxford English dictionaries and several other sources: "A building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited." A couple of museums on the list have two buildings, but none have large numbers. Are there one or two buildings in the Forbidden City which are considered the Museum? And what is the difference between the Palace Museum and the Forbidden City, or are they the same? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, our article does not currently define the term "museum" (I had provided one, which you removed, even though it is the one definition accepted by experts in the industry), much less provide guidance on how it interprets that definition. The same is true of the TEA/AECOM list, as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Moreover, neither list is intended to be a comprehensive listing of all of the most visited museums in the world. Relying solely on these two lists would promise neither objectivity nor neutrality as it would lead to an inherently incomplete list. Therefore we do not: for example, the Mexican museums are not on either list.

Regarding number of buildings: the Vatican Museums comprise 26 buildings.[1] The American Museum of Natural History comprises 28 buildings. The Palace Museum comprises 10 buildings within the ticketed admission area (everything north of the Meridian Gate) of the Forbidden City.[2] (The Digital Gallery is located at the Duanmen outside and the Kulangsu Gallery is in Xiamen.)

It should be noted that dedicated buildings to house the Palace Museum's collection are being built in Beijing and Hong Kong, and both are expected to open in 2022. So this debate will eventually be moot with respect to that particular museum. It's the overall approach you claim to take (although it's not the one we actually follow) that I take issue with. We can't build an objective, neutral article using just two lists when neither one (individually or in combination) covers the entire subject matter of this article, and one in particular (the TEA/AECOM list) doesn't even define its subject matter to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we have a difference of opinion on a what a museum is. The Vatican Museums and the American Museum of Natural History are very large, but the halls and galleries are interconnected and contained under the same roof. You walk inside from hall to hall; you don't go outside.

As to the reliability of the TEA-AECOM and Art Newspaper as sources, I would just note that these two publications are cited as the prime sources for the articles on most visited museums in the English, German, Italian, French, Catalan, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese and Arabic Wikipedias, so someone thinks they're reliable. The only one that I've seen which includes the Forbidden City is the Chinese Wikipedia.

But, as you say, if new buildings are being constructed in China to house the collections, then those would presumably be on the list. As you know, it's not up to your or me to decide what's in the list. it's up to the journalists and associations which compile these kinds of lists. Otherwise it's original research, and, as you know, not allowed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Met statistic quoted in the current version of the article includes visitor figures for three unconnected buildings. The Royal Greenwich museums comprise two unconnected buildings and a ship. If these are truly the distinctions we're relying on in building this article, we should make them explicit and apply them consistently.

It's up to journalists and associations to decide what's in their lists. It's up to us to decide what's in ours. User:Viztor is not engaging in original research when he provides a properly cited reference to the Palace Museum's visitor figures. I am not engaging in original research when I provide properly cited references to visitor figures of other museums. But blind reliance on cherry-picked sources that happen to support one's personal opinion and refusing to consider all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources is, as you know, not allowed by Wikipedia's neutral point of view. And as you also know, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. This would not be the first time that problematic articles on one Wikipedia have been translated into a different-language Wikipedia.

Just to be clear: I am not questioning the reliability of your preferred lists, in the sense that I trust their numbers. However, neither list claims to be a comprehensive list of the world's most visited museums. You are the person repeatedly making that claim. No reliable, published sources exist for that claim. That claim is original research. Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: Hi, I've thought about the concerns you posted above, and I'm still quite convinced the Palace Museum belongs to the list. We're not here to define museums, the Palace Museum, as of now, is an enclosed zone with several exhibition halls. The other examples you choose are not convincing as when you are combining the numbers from several museums of the same region, there are a lot of repeated headcount (as in the region is not fenced and ticketed), that's not the case for the palace museum, which is a fenced ticketed complex of buildings, and the headcount only happen at the gate of the region. It's a single enclosed region that exhibit historical artifacts (mostly). The Palace Museum has about 1.8 million artifacts, and most of them are never displayed to the public because there are not enough space for it, in the Forbidden Palace. That makes the case clear enough for me. Also, referring to SiefkinDR's comment above, the current collection does not include the royal documents from the court, which have been transferred to the Historical Achieve of the National Archives sometime ago, except some documents regarding the building itself, which is reserved for maintenance purposes. Also, The Palace is also partners with Vatican recently to host an exhibitions of the artifacts. Most of the best arts pieces of the Ming and Qing dynasty is only seen in the Palace Museum, it is the royal collection, you know, and rarely in the National Museum of China. However, you're welcomed to add a note to it with your concern. Thanks. Viztor (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No matter the 'convincingness' of a talk-page 'rationale' for including the museum on the list, if sources don't, Wikipedia can't either. TP ✎ ✓ 06:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with ThePromenader. The Forbidden City or Palace Museum is not mentioned on either of the most respected international lists of museum attendance, nor is it listed in the article on most visited museums in the other Wikipedias, with the exception of the Chinese Wikipedia. Until there are neutral and reliable sources which include it, it can't be included on the list. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not an argument, and was refuted long time time. Wikipedia is not limited to some specific third-party produced lists in any case, and to ignore the reliable sources on its visitors count because the sources don't produce a full list of ranks is ridiculous.Viztor (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SiefkinDR persists in labouring under three erroneous notions:

1. Several reliable sources not connected to China refer to the Palace Museum as the world's most-visited museum – see Comments on latest changes above.
2. On the other hand, Wikipedia in any language is not a reliable source.
3. Per WP:RS, "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." (emphasis mine) WP:NPOV says "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." (emphases mine)

I'd be happy to discuss how to properly weigh conflicting sources, but find it difficult to assume good faith and engage in a productive discussion when SiefkinDR willfully repeats the same erroneous arguments time and time again. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is but one article on one topic, and the best that it can do is consider the preponderance of all sources discussing this topic (giving weight to the more reliable ones, of course), and follow the model of the majority therein (as these will be the sources for the the article!), and that is all this article does, period. TP ✎ ✓ 05:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is that the article does not in fact "consider the preponderance of all sources discussing this topic": it only considers the two that you and SiefkinDR happen to like, while ignoring all the other sources that have been pointed out to you over and over again. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

And those two sources are a representation of the preponderance present in most sources. Without even considering what would motivate such behaviour, presenting individual trees as 'the forest' is the very definition of the WP:OR (and other ad hominem) accusations you are making against other contributors. But it's not about the contributors, it's about the sources, so unless one can demonstrate that a majority of reliable mainstream sources do include the museum in their lists (and, again, a cherrypicked selection of 'trees' is not this), there is no reason to include it. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 06:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My comments are motivated by the poor understanding of Wikipedia policy repeatedly demonstrated here. NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not just the majority view. The Palace Museum is a member of the Chinese Museums Association and the predominant view in the Chinese media is that it is China's and the world's most visited museum. Its status as a museum has long been recognized by International Council of Museums (who collaborates with it in organizing the International Training Centre for Museum Studies), and the American Alliance of Museums also recognizes it as one of the world's most visited museums. I'd consider the views of major museum professional organizations and China's own perspective on its museums significant enough to merit some sort of mention in the article. Cobblet (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The only one doing any 'interpretation' of wikipedia policy here seems to be you. And Wikipedians don't get to 'interpret facts' ('considerations' of 'sources -they- like'), either. Either demonstrate that a majority of all mainstream, reliable sources include it in their list, or there is no argument for its inclusion, period. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 08:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The only person reading Wikipedia policy also seems to be me. See Jimbo's comments cited at WP:WEIGHT. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Misinterpretation (with a mix of 'the sources that I like') is not 'reading'. And even then, that doesn't fly, as should you attempt to apply the very rules you cite to your own demand, it fails. So if a majority of mainstream sources do not represent your WP:POV, yet you really, really 'need' to present it, you must start an article representing that WP:POV (aka: 'List of most visited museums according to X'). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 09:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK specifically rejects your suggested approach, as I already pointed out in my last edit summary. Cobblet (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess there's no choice but to follow what the majority of mainstream, reliable sources say. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You guess wrong: the policy requires according all significant views WP:DUE weight. If you don't accept this, this discussion is pointless. I tire of repeating myself. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

And, again, the weight priority goes towards most reliable sources, which this article quite clearly tries to represent, even in its description. Also, wikipedians creating a 'list' from a hodgepodge of 'selected' sources would be pure WP:OR, which is strictly forbidden... which is why this article emulates a few most-representative-of-mainstream sources, and is clear about this, even in its lede. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Priority" indeed; not tyranny of the majority. Where significant minority views have been published in reliable sources, they should be represented, albeit given lesser weight. It's in fact fair to describe the list as a "hodgepodge" of the Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM lists, which we have "selected" since they are widely cited; and since these two lists do not cover museums of all types in all regions of the world, we have also "selected" some other sources to fill in their gaps in coverage. Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So basically what you are proposing is a WP:OR article, with who (you?) who decides what a 'valid' source is? And to call the majority a 'tyrrany' is a bit much... so the most cited and peer-reviewed sources are tyrannical? ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 18:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "proposing" this: this is what the article has been from the very beginning. You, like any other editor on Wikipedia, are more than welcome to participate in building a consensus over which sources meet the policies of WP:RS. Citing reliable sources is not original research. The tyranny is not in according majority views more weight, but in according minority but significant and reliably published views zero weight. Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Before we go any further, let me be clear as to where I'm coming from. I did not start this article. I wouldn't mind at all seeing this article deleted if we can't come to a consensus on how to present different views fairly. My involvement in this article began with the observation that neither list relied on for most of the article mentioned the two most highly attended museums in Mexico, because neither one happens to be an art museum, while TEA/AECOM seem to think that the US is the only country in North America. Our sources display biases in their coverage; if we are to cover this topic in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies, we need to acknowledge and account for their deficiencies. That involves "research" inasmuch as it involves the "selection" and "interpretation" of sources; but our research must be based on reliable sources, not original research. The fact of the matter is that the concept of a museum is a fuzzy one, and it is perfectly reasonable for different reliable sources to have different views on which buildings should be considered museums. We need to decide whether certain views should be accorded more weight than others, how much weight they should be accorded, and how that weight should be achieved. Our job is not to accept one view, with all its associated biases, to the absolute exclusion of all others. Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, lists like these on wikipedia are problematic, because they most often are WP:OR. Yes, this article was like that in the beginning, which is exactly why its sources were reduced to a verifiable few that most represented mainstream reliable sources, because both these and their representation are verifiable. Adding 'new' (decided by who?) sources, especially non-mainstream and non-reliable ones, opens the door to anyone wishing to promote 'their' museum as #(whatever) with 'their' sources... which is exactly what happened so often in the past. So basically what you're attempting to do, through selective-reasoning 'rationale' (to I don't know what end) and possibly orchestrated 'consensus', is re-open that door wide open again. A limited, controllable source selection (representing the most others possible) is the only way lists like this can subsist, otherwise if you think yourself best suited to decide what sources are best, others will do so too. That is why the sources should be the authority that decides what sources are best (most cited, etc.), not wikipedians (and that's OR!). I don't know what else I can add to make this clear. TP ✎ ✓ 20:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't write articles. Wikipedians write articles. "A limited, controllable source selection" is a selection made by Wikipedians. No source has any "authority" for the purposes of Wikipedia unless Wikipedians recognize that authority. Who decided that AN and TEA/AECOM "most represented mainstream reliable sources"? It wasn't the sources themselves; it was the Wikipedians who wrote the article. This article is difficult to write in that in neither of those primary sources, nor any other primary source, attempts to be a comprehensive list of well-attended museums in every region of the world. Secondary sources that quote those sources don't see this problem, and end up only perpetuating the biases of those primary sources. Wikipedia, through its NPOV policy, imposes on its editors the responsibility to do better, which is achieved through WP:CONSENSUS-building. If you don't like participating in a consensus-guided decision-making process, Wikipedia's not for you, and I have nothing more to say to you. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

When a source is cited by tourist, press, and other agencies the world over, as this article's sources are, that is a reliable source (and list to follow). Yet a lone wikipedian would seem to believe that their own whim ('backed' by a selective 'rationale' ('backed' by selective misinterpreted/misused/non-sequitur wikipedia 'rules')) overrides that? And again, who is deciding that secondary (second-rate) sources override these... because they don't tell the 'right' story (according to that wikipedian)?

Wikipedians can write articles, but they cannot decide what is 'fact' or not – only sources can. Yet, of course, one can misrepresent anything by 'selecting' non-mainstream (even WP:FRINGE sources) to suit their... 'needs', and that seems to be exactly what is being attempted here. And consensus is not but '!voting', it's also reliablility, verifiability and reason. Just making sounds that only seem this doesn't stand to testing, and all the '!voting' (and rallied back-up to that end) in the world can't change that. TP ✎ ✓ 22:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you think is being attempted here. If you think any of the sources used here represent the fringe views of a tiny minority, you're welcome to identify those sources and views. Funny you should mention rallied back-up though. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What has demonstrably already happened is that the the article has been changed, with your approval, in a way to support your WP:POV, even while it was being contested, here (while you made admonishments about not participating in 'consensus building' – so what is this?). And that speaks pretty well for itself. TP ✎ ✓ 00:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mevlana Museum?

Including the Mevlana Museum in this list is a bit absurd. It's a mausoleum and religious shrine with a number of religious relics, and attracts large numbers of pilgrims. It's not mentioned in any major museum list, only that of the Turkish Ministry of Tourism. SiefkinDR (talk)

@SiefkinDR: In looking at the definition of museum, the Mevlana does seem to qualify as a museum. That said, our inclusion criteria also says that some museums are excluded if they are not primarily considered museums, but are more likely to be thought of as historical monuments. So, I would tend to agree with you. It is a museum, but it is not primarily a museum, and so shouldn't be included. Qono (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that Versailles, Peterhof, and the Palace Museum are considered "primarily" historical monuments, because that assertion needs to be supported by reliable sources. User:Qono, what you're saying is that if a space fulfills all the purposes of a museum, but it also fulfills other purposes (e.g. religious purposes), it's no longer a museum. I find that problematic – museums are inherently multifunctional; but if that's part of our inclusion criteria, we should state it explicitly. By the way, the Mevlana's absence from our two preferred lists is irrelevant, since it's not an art museum, and is located in the Middle East, which TEA/AECOM does not cover. Cobblet (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cobblet, I think it is ok for an institution to be multi-functional and to have multiple identities as a museum and a monument, palace, etc. — but that it should be widely and primarily regarded as a museum. That is, it should either be a museum first or be referred to and thought of as a museum as much as it is thought of as something else, for it to be included. I've started a structured discussion below to try to get to the bottom of this. I welcome your perspective in that thread. Qono (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria in the lead

@Cobblet: While I think it is important to define the inclusion criteria for lists, I don't think we should limit ourselves to Art Newspaper and TEA-AECOM by listing them in the lead. Perhaps that these are the two most authoritative sources can be addressed in a footnote?

I am also confused about the section regarding palace museums. Are you saying we shouldn't include palace museums because they are not in Art Newspaper or TEA-AECOM, or that we should even though they are not listed there?

Let me know what you're thinking. Either way, thanks for your contributions and for helping keep these lists up-to-date! Qono (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is better to be clear that those are the two sources this list mainly (but not exclusively) relies on. If you feel the current wording might give the impression that the scope of the list is limited to only these two sources, please feel free to rephrase accordingly.

Many former palaces have been converted into museums. Some such museums are on the Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM lists (the Louvre, the Vatican, the Hermitage, the Moscow Kremlin, the National Folk Museum of Korea, etc.); others are not, even though other reliable sources (generally citing the government cultural agencies in each of their respective countries, which often apply a statutory definition of museums) describe them specifically as museums and not merely as historical monuments. In the interests of maintaining NPOV by presenting all significant views published in reliable sources without giving them undue weight, I've pointed out several examples of the latter palace museums without including them on the actual list. Cobblet (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Thanks for the clarification.

I think the reference section would make it clear to the interested reader which sources are being relied on the most. That information and a footnote that states why these sources are significant seems to me the appropriate place to address the sourcing. Information about sources is typically listed at the bottom, not in the lead of the article. How about a mention of reliable sources in the lead with a footnote that describes the most authoritative sources?

Regarding the palaces, this seems to be about how we are defining "museum". I do think that it is appropriate to state how this list is defining "museum", and it seems like there are two ways of doing this:

1. Allow the balance of reliable sources determine whether or not an institution is a museum or not. If the majority of sources refer to a place as a museum, than it should be included on here.
2. Essentially use the dictionary definition and describe that in the lead; something like: "a building or institution whose primary purpose is the storage and exhibition of objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest."

Thoughts? Qono (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

List articles are not like regular articles. Per WP:SALLEAD: "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title." If one of the criteria is membership on two specific published lists, we should say that up front.

Both approaches you're suggesting have been tried. In the past I've tried giving more explicit criteria to define a museum, but that work was soon deleted by someone else. As for the first approach, you're welcome to look through previous threads on this page to see how that played out. Basically the discussions went nowhere since it's hard to build a meaningful consensus when only two editors are willing to participate. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to try your approaches out on a particular site currently not on the list, a good choice is Kolkata's Victoria Memorial, which was included on previous editions of the TEA/AECOM list but not the current one, even though it recorded 3.65 million visitors over the 12-month period ending March 2018, assuming the statistic here coincides with the museum's annual reporting cycle. SiefkinDR, who says he's been there, doesn't seem to think it's a museum. Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I think it makers sense to be clear and define things as much as we can in the lead as you suggested. Sorry to hear that there has been trouble building consensus in this list article in the past. If this generates friction in the future, we can start a request for comment to get more perspectives on the issue. As far as Kolkata's Victoria Memorial, I don't see it commonly referred to as a museum nor does it seem to fit the general definition, so I would be inclined not to include it. I can take a deeper look if you're interested in adding it back in. Either way, I've tried my hand at rewording the lead. Let me know if you have issues! Thanks. Qono (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. They look fine to me. Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reservations with the changes made – changes made even while the discussion about them was happening just above (impossible to plead ignorance about that) – but was/am waiting for SiefkinDR to join in so that we can have a proper discussion. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 08:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me repeat again that it's not up to us to decide what museums are on the list.. It's up to us to report, with citations, what reliable sources such as the TEA-AECOM survey and Art Newspaper list say. They're experts on this subject and we're not. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me repeat again that neither source is an expert on the entire field of museums. TEA/AECOM is an expert on European, American, and Asia-Pacific museums. It does not compile statistics for Latin American, African, or Middle Eastern museums. The Art Newspaper is only an expert with respect to art museums. Certain museums that are universally regarded as such (e.g. Mexico's National Museum of Anthropology) are not included on either list, because neither list purports to be an expert on Latin American museums that are not art museums. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Victoria Memorial is just that; statues and portraits of Queen Victoria and objects relating to her. It's very impressive, but it's mostly very large empty space, like the Lincoln Memorial and Jefferson Msmorial in Washington. DO you consider that a museum? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the Victoria Memorial dedicated to the acquisition, care, research, and exhibition of numerous objects that represent the legacy of humankind, e.g., Queen Victoria? It sounds like the answer is yes. The problem I sometimes have with SiefkinDR's statements here and elsewhere is that they seem to be based on a value judgment on whether a museum conforms to his personal expectations of a museum. A building that fulfills all the purposes of a museum is a museum, even if it is not a very interesting or impressive museum. It would only not be a museum if it failed to serve at least one of the purposes a museum typically serves.

The other and at least equally relevant question is, Is the Victoria Memorial reported as a museum in reliable sources? I agree the Victoria Memorial is not universally reported as a museum. On the other hand, many newspapers such as the one I referred to earlier do call it a museum, and it is present on both this and this catalogue of Indian museums (the former with the support of India's Ministry of Culture). There's also the fact that it has been on previous editions of the TEA/AECOM list (most recently in 2016), but not the current one. That may be because TEA/AECOM no longer consider it a museum. That may also be because recent attendance data for the museum is not available. I'm willing to believe the former reason and exclude it from the list as a result, even though I suspect the latter may also be true. If the Victoria Memorial ever reappears on future TEA/AECOM lists, I think it should reappear on ours. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ThePromenader, I'm happy to discuss the changes. The thread above seemed to have gotten really heated, and I honestly couldn't figure out what exactly was at issue. Please let me know what specifically is off track in my edits and point to Wikipedia policies and guidelines to keep things focused. Qono (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's nothing more complicated than what SiefkinDR said just above. It's not the job of wikipedians to 'consider' what is or isn't a 'museum list' (that's WP:OR), it's the source, so the best wikipedia can do is emulate the most representive (mainstream, reliable, cited) list out there, and make that clear in the article (thus giving the source due credit, as well). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 16:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ThePromenader, I'm not clear on your argument. It is the job of editors to determine list criteria and it would only be original research if we are making assertations not found in reliable sources. I started a structured discussion thread below on these issues, and I welcome your input there. Qono (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My recent revert

Apologies to User:Qono and User:SiefkinDR for the mass revert that took place just before the page was locked. I appreciate most of the changes that both of you made, which bring the article closer to the goal of meeting WP:NPOV. It is only User:ThePromenader's repeated revert to a particular version of the edits which contains unsourced statements that motivated me to roll back all of your work until our discussion runs its course. Cobblet (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

But you rolled back even further... I only 'reset' the 'Versailles' tit-for-tat, back a few edits to a version by Qono. What's the urgency, anyway? Really. TP ✎ ✓ 19:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You removed the fact that Versailles is classified as a museum by its national cultural agency, and a citation that supports exactly that fact. Your point of view allows you to believe that you have "reset" things, but what you've really done is remove a significant view published in a reliable source, contrary to WP:NPOV. You also reverted several edits by other editors, on the grounds that nothing in the article should change when consensus-building is still ongoing. Since there is no consensus for any of the changes made since yesterday, I reverted to yesterday's version. Cobblet (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And that was exactly what was still being discussed on the talk-page, and in the tit-for-tat revert-war itself. I only sought to put an end to it. And my comment had an implied no further edits in that vein, not for the entire article (and certainly not what you imply). TP ✎ ✓ 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And that's an odd accusation coming from someone who just apologised for a "mass revert"! ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 19:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what you actually meant to do with your revert. I did not understand what you were trying to do since your edit summary mentioned only a "sources issue", but then you reverted to a version containing unsourced statements. Since you had also complained yesterday about my earlier edits, I reverted my changes as well, which Qono and SiefkinDR subsequently built on. I started this thread only to note that I appreciate the good work Qono and SiefkinDR have done here, and I intend to reinstate their edits once this discussion runs its course and any problematic aspects of their work have been addressed. Cobblet (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, but I don't 'grudge' (on days past) – I reason – and that's the very reason I'm on the talk page, and not the article itself: if reason can't be reached here, there's no point in even touching the article (and there's never any 'hurry' for that). My revert was simply to halt/cancel/reset what seemed to be a very unreasonable exchange. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's easier for me to assume good faith on your part if you assume good faith on mine. Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Another Idea

The only real solution I can think of to this sort of 'list' article not being WP:OR, aside from sticking to a few very clearly defined (and disclosed) source lists, is to create a list with multiple columns, one for each source list, each sortable. The result would probably be a long list, but when sorting the list by 'source X' header, the museums not in that source would drop to the bottom of the list ('not ranked for that source').

The source lists would still have to be clearly defined and disclosed, and that would still disallow individual source-claims (museums declaring (themselves) #whatever), but perhaps it would widen the scope of the list a bit. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 19:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article dedicated to the Art Newspaper list. This proposed solution would replicate that article to a large extent while making this article a lot more cumbersome to read and navigate, which doesn't seem very helpful. Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my description, I'll try to clarify tomorrow. TP ✎ ✓ 20:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The idea was basically not combining sources, but separating them into sortable columns... and there would be one column for each (additional) source-list).

On second thought, forget this, it would be a complicated mess, code-wise (hard to maintain). TP ✎ ✓ 10:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Mexican museums

A question to User:SiefkinDR and others: do you believe we should remove the two Mexican museums currently on the list? Cobblet (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cobblet, On what grounds would we remove it? They are both clearly museums and are primarily described as museums and both have over 2 million visitors per year as described in a reliable source. As museums with over 2 million visitors per year, they should remain on the list. Qono (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If the source is reliable, I think they should stay.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SiefkinDR, I'd appreciate it if you could explain whether you believe the source to be reliable and why. Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SiefkinDR and User:ThePromenader take the position that only institutions listed in Art Newspaper and the TEA/AECOM should be eligible. I would like them to confirm that position with respect to these two museums. I'd also appreciate it if User:SiefkinDR could clarify what he meant by "equivalents" in his comments under Talk:List of most visited museums#Only institutions listed in Art Newspaper and the TEA/AECOM are eligible. Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If it would quell the push to transforming this article into a free-for-all WP:POV-push-for-WP:OR hellhole, I would support removing them from the list. TP ✎ ✓ 19:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

So you would exclude from the list institutions that are unanimously referred to as museums by reliable sources, because you would choose to exclusively report the conclusions of two sources, both of which explicitly refuse to compile statistics on non-art museums in Latin America. Am I understanding you correctly? Because that to me is blatant cherrypicking. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to spell it out, we have four lists that everyone here seems to agree is authoritative within their stated scope:

• the Art Newspaper list of global art museums;
• the TEA/AECOM list of Asia-Pacific museums;
• the TEA/AECOM list of European museums; and
• the TEA/AECOM list of US museums.

These Mexican museums do not fall in the scope of any of these lists. Should we not include them on our list, whose stated scope is wider than the total scope of these four lists, for that reason alone? Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also state my view as plainly as I can: I do not believe it is OR to add reliably sourced visitor statistics of Mexican museums whose status as such is not disputed by any reliable source I'm aware of. But if it is, then the initial act of combining the Art Newspaper list and the three TEA/AECOM lists, something nobody other than Wikipedia has ever done, is also OR, and this article must be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

So find the most authorative, widely cited source for South America, and indicate that clearly in the lede as well. And if there isn't a source, well, that's a problem, and that limitation must be indicated in the article as well.

No, that is not a means to 'allow just any source': I do see the 'edging in' line of 'reasoning' being attempted here, but it, again, entirely misses the point of it's the source list that decides inclusion (designation as a museum), not wikipedians. Anything outside of that is WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 02:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no such source for all of South America (which Mexico is not part of anyway). But the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology and History is authoritative with respect to visitor statistics at that country's cultural sites. Cobblet (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for that oversight (was thinking 'Latin America'). But if that source is the country's foremost authority (and most widely-cited) on museum statistics (and designation ; ), that would be fine as a source if it was made clear in the article itself that that part of the list depends on that source-authority. TP ✎ ✓ 10:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Peterhof not a museum

Please note that Peterhof is not described by the Russian Ministry of Culture as a museum; it is described in Russian as a Palace-Park Complex.

Where did you see that? I agree it's an appropriate descriptor, but the source cited in the article is from the Russian Ministry of Culture and the official name of the institution is given as Гос.музей-заповедник "Петергоф" – State Museum-Reserve "Peterhof". Moreover, on p. 40 of the Russian Ministry of Culture's 2016 report on cultural statistics, there is a graph titled "Самые посещаемые музеи Российской Федерации, 2016 г." – "The most visited museums of the Russian Federation, 2016." First on the list is Музей-заповедник "Петергоф" – Museum-reserve "Peterhof". Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was cultural attache for the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg, and spent a lot of time at Peterhof. It has nothing in common with the Hermitage and Russian Museum and the other Museums of St. Petersburg. Its formally a Palace-Park, a Dvoryets-Park. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I was really hoping you'd be able to provide a source showing that the formal designation of Peterhof is a Palace-Park, because I've already found two sources from the Russian Ministry of Culture that use a different designation. I'm not interested in your personal value judgments or your travel experiences: please cite sources. Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Петергоф (дворцово-парковый ансамбль)is the term used in the Russian Wikipedia Article. Petehof Palace-Park Ensemble. I'll double-check and see where I found it in official publications. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Now I see what you're talking about. You're correct, according to the Peterhof home page, there is a picture gallery, the Музей "Картинный дом", in a separate building from the main palace, with a collection of eighty paintings from the period. And you are correct that the whole establishment is often called in Russian a Museum-Reserve. However, it's not really comparable to the Hermitage or Russian Museum in form or function. People go for the architecture, fountains and park; the paintings are secondary, and there's not a lot left inside since the War. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, which is why there probably aren't (I'm guessing; I haven't rigorously checked in the case of Peterhof) a majority of sources that consider such palaces "museums", and why the Peterhof is not on the main list. But I think it is fair to include it in the group of palaces sometimes also referred to as museums, and to document this viewpoint in a note or paragraph outside the list. Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Mevlana Museum again?

I see that the Mevlana Museum has just been put back into the list; it is a mausoleum and religious shrine, with a large number of pilgrims visiting. Can anyone explain why this museum, which has been deleted twice, is still in this list? Are all religious shrines now going to be included? SiefkinDR (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In short: yes, it is a mausoleum, shrine, and pilgrimage site. It is also a museum. Shrines that are not considered museums and do not serve the functions that define museums must not be included. As for what do with sites that serve both museum and non-museum purposes according to reliable sources, that is what is being discussed above. Here I'll only be addressing this issue in the unique context of Turkey.

In Turkey, museums are a political issue. From its very beginning in the 1920s, the Republic of Turkey has carried out, in accordance with its secularist ideology, the museumification of religious sites and sites connected to the country's Ottoman heritage – the attempt to transform them from places of worship and devotion to places of aesthetic appreciation and historical and ethnographic study. This paper provides a good overview of the process as a whole. This paper describes this process and its result in the specific context of Rumi's tomb and mausoleum, now known as the Mevlana Museum.

Each year, Turkey's Ministry of Culture and Tourism publishes annual visitor statistics to its museums (müze) and ruins/archaeological sites (örenyeri). For how it defines and distinguishes these terms, see here, under "Metadata" – "Cultural Heritage Statistics" – "Analytical Framework, Concepts, Definitions, and Classifications". Its 2018 list is here. Its list is frequently reported in the major Turkish newspapers ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and is cited in the article we cite for the Mevlana Museum. The same three museums (not archaeological sites such as Pamukkale – press sources follow the Ministry in distinguishing these from museums) always head the list, although the order sometimes changes: Topkapı Palace, Hagia Sophia, and the Mevlana Museum. This year, all three received more than two million visitors.

This is the only authoritative list of Turkish museum visitor statistics. Neither the Art Newspaper nor TEA/AECOM covers Turkish museums. The Art Newspaper clearly has no business covering the three three sites in question since none of them are art museums. It's not clear whether TEA/AECOM consider Turkey part of Europe for the purposes of compiling its list of European museums. We have already discussed how their coverage of "North American" museums excludes museums from Mexico. Is it because they don't believe the National Museums of History and Anthropology are museums, or did they just not consult Mexican statistics? And which is it in the case of Turkey's museums?

In accordance with the Turkish list, I added both Topkapı Palace and the Mevlana Museum to our list a year ago. (Hagia Sophia only received 1.9 million visitors in 2017.) Not long afterwards, User:ThePromenader and User:DerechoReguerraz removed all palace museums from the list. The Mevlana Museum was not removed until SiefkinDR tried to do so a few days ago.

Before I go any further, I'd welcome comments by everyone on what I've said so far. I could go into more detail on whether reliable sources consider these sites museums, palaces/religious sites, or both; but I'll save it for a later post, if the conversation goes in that direction. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you intend to describe all palaces, former palaces, and religious shrines as museums, this is going to be a very, very long list. If you are going to allow national tourist agencies to determine what's on the list, it will be even longer.

That is the great advantage of using the Art Newspaper and the Museum Index as sources; they have some disadvantages, but they use clear criteria and they don't have national biases.

A problem for all sources is the small number highly-visited museums in some regions, such as Latin America. The way to solve this is probably to have separate lists of the most visited museums in each region, rather than globally. with a shorter list of the top global ten.

Despite the rather unfortunate and insulting comments by one editor, the Art Newspaper is the bible of the art museum community, and their list is very much respected. It publishes editions in English, Russian, French and Chinese. The TEA/AECOM list is compiled not by TEA, but by AECOM, a very respected international consulting firm.

I have one question for Cobblet. Do you intend to add the Forbidden City as the most-visited museum in the world? What source will you use? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you intend to describe all palaces, former palaces, and religious shrines as museums, this is going to be a very, very long list. Any institution (shrines, palaces, former palaces, zoos, aquariums, archaeological sites, even archaeological sites with attached site museums) that are not considered museums by a majority of reliable sources (i.e., the view that they are not museums is more prominent than the view that they are museums) and do not serve the functions that define museums should not be included on the list. If they do serve museum functions and are considered museums by a significant minority (but not a majority) of reliable sources, the article should mention them in some way, e.g., in a footnote describing excluded palace museums recognized by their national cultural agencies as museums.

If you are going to allow national tourist agencies to determine what's on the list, it will be even longer. That may be the case. But if national tourist agencies are reliable sources, we shouldn't exclude their views merely because the museums they recognize happen not to be art museums and TEA/AECOM isn't interested in covering the museums of those countries.

The Art Newspaper and the Museum Index use clear criteria and they don't have national biases. I disagree strongly with both of these statements. Neither source defines what an art museum is, or what a museum is. We have been discussing the omission of Mexican and Turkish museums from the TEA/AECOM list: these are signs of national bias.

Do you intend to add the Forbidden City as the most-visited museum in the world? No. I think what you did a few days ago, in describing the minority viewpoint of the Chinese media in a separate paragraph underneath the list, is a reasonable way to present a minority view that is nevertheless significant, without according that view the same weight as the museums that do appear on the Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM lists.

SiefkinDR, would you like to comment on the Turkish situation? Cobblet (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. For me, Topkapi Palace is a monument, not a museum. I believe it's on the list of monuments. When I saw it it was restored historical rooms (and not very many of them), with only a couple of museum displays. The really good museum is the archeology museum, just down the street, which has an outstanding collection but not nearly as many visitors. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, and I agree that all of the museumified Turkish sites I've mentioned retain at least some degree of non-museum character. However, the Turkish Parliament distinguishes quite clearly between those sites it regards as museums such as Topkapı, which it places under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism; and other historic palaces in Istanbul, which it supervises directly.[10] Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Issues to be settled

Only AECOM/TEA and the Art Newspaper is allowed?

• No No clear criteria for inclusion, arbitrary decision on sourceViztor (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Viztor, Thanks for posting an RfC for this issue. I moved the request into the above thread, as these issues have already been discussed quite a bit by some editors and additional comments should build on those discussions. I encourage you to leave your comments there. Qono (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not entirely correct. Other Sources include have to be neutral, not pushing a particular objective, not having a having a conflict of interest. and verifiable.SiefkinDR (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we allow any museum with a visitor count from a reliable source?

• Yes Viztor (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not entirely correct. Sources must be objective, not in conflict of interest, and neutral, Sources can be disputed if this isn't the case. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What count as Museum?

• This issue is not settled or clear. Museums listed in the AECOM/TEA survey and Art Newspaper should be included. On other museums, a consensus of editors would be necessary. A common definition needs to be arrived at.SiefkinDR (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • AECOM/TEA and the Art Newspaper are not expert in museums. AECOM is an themed entertainment organisation. The ground they're taken as reliable must not be because they produced a full-list, that would be fallacious. On the other note, there IS a scholarly association for museums, though they do not produce a rank for their member, they do have a definition for museums museum definition by ICOM which here I quote as:

“A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”

--Viztor (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your statement that TEA/AECOM or the Art Newspaper don't know anything about museums. Their annual lists are cited by the news media around the world, and most museums subscribe to the Art Newspaper. If understand you correctly, any museum could enter itself into the article, and give its own figures for its attendance? And the list would include not just traditional museums, but would also include historic monuments, palaces, open-air museums, maritime museums, museums within cathedrals, and historic districts of cities? Where do you draw the line? SiefkinDR (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that, your argument is against a straw man. A city council may know a few thing about science, but they are not academic institution, what they said can not be taken as truth just because they said it, it can be taken as truth when there are scholars of the relevant field that test to it. You can't say the earth is in the center of the world because the church said it. Unless you find a better definition else where, this one sticks for me. Viztor (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A more concise and useful definition of museum is the one in the Oxford English Dictionary: "A building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited." A museum is, first of all, by definition, a building.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You and the OED are entitled to the view that a museum must be a building. ICOM and museum professionals in general (see ICOM's definition above, and this list of definitions it has solicited from museum professionals around the world) recognize that museums may not be confined to individual buildings. In accordance with NPOV, we should be according each of these significant views due weight. We should not be picking one and excluding the other. Cobblet (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Museum vs. Historical Monument

The ICOM definition above is so broad that it includes practically everything, from cathedrals and palaces to historic neighborhoods and battlefields. We need to define the difference between museums and historical monuments. I would define it this way:

"A museum is a building in which objects of scientific, artistic, or historic importance are displayed."

"An historical monument is a building or site of importance for its architecture or for notable events which took place there."

By this standard, the Louvre and National Gallery are museums. The Palace of Versailles, Forbidden City, Topkapi Palace and Peterhof are historic monuments. When the objects from the Forbidden City are moved to their new site, that will be in a Museum, like the National Palace Museum in Taiwan. That seems to me the simplest and clearest way to describe it. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)