Jump to content

Talk:List of most-visited museums/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Palace or Museum of Versailles? - once again

I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but according to the French Ministry of Culture The Palace of Versailles is called an historic monument, though it also contains a museum, the Museum of the History of France. The museum is classified separately. Here is the official designation from the Base Merimée, the data base of French monuments.

of Versailles

Here's the full picture. There's legislation that applies to historic buildings, which are protected as monuments historiques; and legislation that applies to museums (musées de France). Here is the list of buildings protected as monuments historiques. (If you have trouble handling the spreadsheet, here's the list of monuments historiques in Paris.) The buildings that comprise the Louvre,[1] Orsay[2] and Versailles are all monuments historiques.
As for the institutions classified as musées de France, let me quote verbatim what I already wrote a few days ago:
Here is how the law defines a musée de France:

toute collection permanente composée de biens dont la conservation et la présentation revêtent un intérêt public et organisée en vue de la connaissance, de l'éducation et du plaisir du public.

To obtain this designation, a musée de France must do the following:
  • L'engagement sur les missions : conserver, restaurer, étudier, enrichir les collections ; les rendre accessibles au public ; mettre en œuvre des actions d’éducation et de diffusion ; contribuer aux progrès et à la diffusion de la recherche (Art. L. 441-2.).
  • Être obligatoirement dirigé par un personnel scientifique issu de la filière culturelle territoriale ou nationale (conservateur ou attaché de conservation).
  • Disposer en propre ou en réseau avec d'autres musées, d'un service éducatif.
  • Tenir à jour un inventaire de ses collections.
  • Rédiger un projet scientifique et culturel (PSC) qui fixe ses grandes orientations.
Those are things one would expect a museum to do. They're consistent with the various definitions of museums proposed here. Versailles is on the list of musées de France. fr:Musée de France#Fréquentation lists Versailles as the second most visited musée de France in 2014, consistent with the Ministry publications I've referred to earlier.
It's reasonable to say that because Versailles can arguably be divided into a "museum" and a non-museum portion (notwithstanding Britannica's observation that "a portion of those [museum] holdings are on display throughout the palace"), reporting the visitor statistic for Versailles as a whole misrepresents the number of people who actually visit the "museum" as opposed to only the palace apartments and gardens. (Similar objections can be raised against the Beijing Palace Museum and Peterhof.) So I for one don't have a problem with such sites not being on the list. But the point User:Qono and I are trying to get across is that this distinction is a rather fine one, and deserves an explanation of some sort in the article. Cobblet (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And again, all I'm asking for is that note "b" in the article mention Versailles alongside the Beijing Palace Museum and Peterhof. It's a clear example of the same thing: a palace that is classified as a museum by its national cultural agency. I'm not asking to put it back on the list. Cobblet (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

According to most every source (thus reality), Versailles is a palace (the place itself is the exhibition (in addition to what's in it)). Yes, it is administratively under the tutelle of 'museums of France', but that does not mean that it is a museum. I really don't see the point of this. TP ✎ ✓ 08:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The same thing could be argued with respect to the Beijing Palace Museum, Peterhof, Wilanow Palace, and Topkapi. If it's OK for those sites to be mentioned in note "b", I don't see why Versailles should be treated differently. Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As to Versailles, the same ticket to the Palace of Versailles also gets you into the Museum of the History of France. I can tell you from recent experience that, while the Palace is jammed with visitors, there is practically nobody in the Museum of the History of France. Yet you insist all those people are going to the Museum. I don't get it. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you really not see any difference between the Metropolitan Museum, Air and Space Museum and the Musee d'Orsay, where people go to see the museum collections, and the palaces you mention, where people go to see the buildings themselves? The Turkish government now says that the Hagia Sofia is a museum, not just a mosque. Do you want to include it in the list just because the Turkish government does? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yet you insist all those people are going to the Museum. I don't get it.
What you still do not get is that I am not insisting anything of the sort, and have in fact insisted to the contrary at least four times (this is now the fifth). You exert yourself unnecessarily in arguing against this straw man you've set up. Qono and I have tried very hard to explain the difference between putting a site on the list of museums, and putting it in a footnote as an example of the type of site we are not putting on the list of museums (because although a minority of sources may consider them museums, that is only a minority viewpoint). It has been, dare I say, a monumental task:
"And again, all I'm asking for is that note "b" in the article mention Versailles alongside the Beijing Palace Museum and Peterhof. It's a clear example of the same thing: a palace that is classified as a museum by its national cultural agency. I'm not asking to put it back on the list." [3]
"My point is that the article should explain that it is distinguishing between visits to a museum, and visits to a site that is partly a museum. The purpose of the footnote is to give examples of palaces that are partly museums. [...] I [am] not trying to prove the objective correctness of the Ministry's view." [4]
"You are still unable to realize that [putting Versailles on the list] is neither what I'm claiming nor what I'm asking for. [...] Thank you for articulating the distinction between visits to a museum, and visits to a site that is partly a museum. Are you opposed to the idea of explaining that distinction to our readers? Are you opposed to specifically using Versailles as an example of that distinction? Why?" [5]
"I am not describing the Palace of Versailles as a museum. I understand completely the reasons for which many other reliable sources do not consider Versailles a museum. The French Ministry of Culture is the one describing Versailles as a museum, not me." [6]
Please also read Qono's responses to you in the thread Versailles, Topkapi Palace and Peterhof, and his response to ThePromenader here.
Do you really not see any difference between the Metropolitan Museum, Air and Space Museum and the Musee d'Orsay, where people go to see the museum collections, and the palaces you mention, where people go to see the buildings themselves?
Again the same straw man. Moreover, what I "see" is irrelevant; what matters is what significant viewpoints (there may be more than one) have been expressed on the topic in reliable sources. This is especially important in situations where the line between the "collection" and the "buildings themselves" is not so easily drawn. As I asked Johnbod above: What's the difference between visitors who go to the Vatican just to see the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel and the Raphael Rooms, and those who go to Hagia Sophia just to see the mosaics?
The Turkish government now says that the Hagia Sofia is a museum, not just a mosque. Do you want to include it in the list just because the Turkish government does?
Of course not, because you included the word "just". The Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism is only one source out of many we should be consulting. The key question is the one ThePromenader asked you above with respect to the Mevlana Museum, which you have not yet answered: "Shouldn't the sources be doing the designation/categorisation?" We see that the Turkish government calls it a museum, but how do other sources describe Hagia Sophia?
I can tell you from recent experience that, while the Palace is jammed with visitors, there is practically nobody in the Museum of the History of France.
I congratulate you on having the privilege of being well travelled, and the pleasure to live in the country whose culture you love so dearly. I can also tell you from having been in Versailles in November that while the Queen's Apartments were under renovation (they were only reopened in April), there were a significant number of people (certainly not "practically nobody") admiring the paintings in the "museum" rooms. Not that either of our personal observations matter, of course. Reminiscence is easier than research. Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Cobblet. So far your research has brought into the list the Mevlana Museum and the Topkapi Palace. Now that the Turkish Ministry of Culture has classified Hagia Sofia as a museum, do you intend to add it to the list? Maybe I'm too suspicious, but I notice that all of your edits and additions to the list so far, like those of quono, seem to be for the purpose of justifying the inclusion of the Forbidden City. I'm probably too suspicious.
On that topic, I have a question for you. you mentioned that a new museum is being constructed in Beijing to display the collections of the Forbidden City. Where is that museum going to be? I presume it will be outside the Forbidden City. When is it scheduled for completion? I can't seem to find out much about it. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
First of all, Topkapi Palace isn't actually on the list; it's only mentioned in the same footnote where I'd like to mention Versailles. I also don't intend to add Hagia Sophia to the list – of the reliable sources I've seen that do mention its conversion to a museum, they usually only give the year that happened, and make no particular reference to a museum collection. In principle I'm OK with your recent addition mentioning its exclusion, although I would not go so far as to categorically call it a "mosque" (my understanding is that religious services are not yet being held there on a regular basis); nor is its categorization as a museum particularly "recent", having occurred in 1935. Britannica calls it "one of the world's great monuments" and that's probably the most neutral description. But those are quibbles we can deal with after we've settled the larger issues.
I understand your suspicion; I did put the Beijing Palace Museum on this list a year ago. But now I agree with your view that doing so puts undue weight on the Chinese view of the entire site as a museum. However significant a view this is in China (the importance of the Palace Museum's collections was brought to general attention by an award-winning 2017 TV show in China) and among museum professionals (since 2013, ICOM has collaborated with the Palace Museum in establishing a "International Training Centre" there), I agree that this nevertheless remains a minority view. You've already asked me once last week whether I intend to add the Forbidden City to the list. My answer to you was no. It's up to you whether you wish to assume good faith on my part.
The new Palace Museum will be located 25 km north of the Forbidden City in Haidian, a suburb of Beijing.[7][8] It's expected to open fully in 2022.[9] Hong Kong is supposed to open its own branch of the Palace Museum, the Hong Kong Palace Museum, at the same time. Cobblet (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the repeat question. I didn't need to ask. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Water under the bridge. Best, Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Reina Sofía

The visitor figure we and others cite for Reina Sofía is actually the sum of 1,694,296 visitors to the main museum, 1,641,160 visitors to the Palacio de Cristal del Retiro, and 562,853 visitors to the Palacio de Velázquez.[10][11] The latter two sites are located about 1 km away from the main museum in the nearby Parque del Buen Retiro. If a museum has branches, we usually try to report only the attendance of the main site where that figure is available (compare the Met and the Taipei Palace Museum). If we do that here as well, it will mean removing Reina Sofía from the list, since the main site received fewer than two million visitors. Thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Cobblet, I think this needs to be case-by-case based on how the visitation is ticketed, common usage, and how reliable sources refer to the institutions.
For the Met, I think most refer to the Cloisters and the Met Brauer as separate. They are ticketed separately, are generally considered separate visits from a visitor's perspective, and reliable sources are more likely to refer to each institution independently rather than the "Met complex of museums". So they should be listed here independently.
In the case of the Reina Sofia, the headquarters is ticketed and the two palaces are not. It seems like they are referred to separately and the visitation experience is not a singular one that naturally includes all of the sites, and so the attendance numbers should not be combined.
This is another notable exception though, that should be mentioned in a secondary space (footnote or another sub-section) if it is taken off the main list. Qono (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus has been determined that an inclusion criteria is not to be included for this list. (non-admin closure) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What should the inclusion criteria be for institutions listed in the list of most visited museums? Qono (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to try to provide a summary of the disagreements about this list to start some structured discussion and build consensus on the issue of which institutions should be included. Please restrict your comments to the issue indicated in the heading. Assume that we are retaining the "over 2 million visitors annually" criteria.

Only institutions listed in Art Newspaper and the TEA/AECOM are eligible

  • Disagree. These are certainly great sources to use, but there may be other reliable sources that list museum attendance that we would want and we shouldn't limit the number of sources that we use to just these two. Qono (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. These are the most demonstrably authorative and cited list sources out there, and the work of compiling the list is their task, not wikipedia's (to avoid the WP:OR rule). What's more, the article is clear about its emulating these sources, which waylays the WP:OR abuse which would/could result from the choices below. TP ✎ ✓ 17:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Total, unquestioning, and exclusive adherence to these two sources is cherrypicking at its most blatant. Even in combination, these two sources are not authoritative with respect to all museums. TEA/AECOM covers only European, American, and Asia-Pacific museums. It does not compile statistics for Latin American, African, or Middle Eastern museums. The Art Newspaper covers only 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 covers Latin American museums that are not art museums. Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree, if the sources are respected and reliable, like TEA-AECOM and the Art Newspaper, and their equivalents. . We cannot be the source. SiefkinDR (talk)
The sources also have to be complete in their coverage, which is the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Only institutions in reliable-source lists of museum attendance are eligible

  • Disagree. While inclusion on a reliable source that is a list of museum attendance is a strong reason to include an institution, there may be other reasons to include an institution that isn't on a list and we shouldn't limit ourselves based on this criteria only. Qono (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. Again, cherrypicking museums from 'select' sources (and why aren't these museums declared/listed as such in mainstream sources?) is WP:OR. It's the source that compiles the list, not wikipedians. TP ✎ ✓ 17:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Choosing museums only if they have appeared on an attendance list is cherrypicking at its most blatant. If a museum is widely regarded as a museum and has over 2 million visitors, it should be on this list, whether or not it appears on any other list. Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. We cannot be he source, we have to rely on reliable organizations and citable sources. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree "reliable-source lists of museum attendance" is too vague of a statement for anyone to make an assessment of inclusion. If we're talking about "lists in Wikipedia already", then definitely not. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree The WP:RS lead the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Any institution described as a museum by a reliable source is eligible

  • Disagree. This is too broad. Many institutions might be referred to as a museum by a single source, but an institution should primarily be referred to as a museum first by many sources for it to be included. Qono (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree, and concur with above rationale. What's more, it's a source that compiles the 'what is a musum' list, not wikipedians, and this is an open door to cherrypicking from (wikipedian-)'preferred' lists, which is WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 17:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The list must accord due weight to reliable sources that identify an institution as a museum and reliable sources that do not, and it must present their views fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias. Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cobblet, This sounds like the criteria described in the next section. I welcome your comments there. Qono (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    I will wait until your discussion with ThePromenader has run its course. It seems premature to discuss how to engage in research when half the contributors, including the creator of the list, seem to think that all research other than the research they did themselves is original research. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Concur with aboveSiefkinDR (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree in principle but potentially disagree in application It completely depends on the WP:RS. If the NYT and the NYT alone calls it a museum and everywhere else is a "historical site", the preponderance of evidence would be that it isn't a museum even if the NYT calls it such. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe It’s a big world so terminologies vary. Leaning on WP:RS and common sense should sort it out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Only institutions that are primarily described as museums in reliable sources are eligible

  • Agree. This best follows the spirit of WP:LISTCRITERIA. If an institution is primarily known as a museum — as opposed to a palace, historical site, monument, etc. — it should be included here. If an institution's primary identity is not as a museum, then it shouldn't be included. I would also be open to including institutions that are museums, but not primarily known as such, in a separate section of the article, or even including them in the main list but coloring the row to indicate that the institution is not primarily thought of as a museum. Qono (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    For clarification: what is your definition of 'primarily' (and is it your definition? If it isn't, whose is it)? This is WP:OR territory. TP ✎ ✓ 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    ThePromenader, My definition is that the majority of reliable sources refer to an institution primarily as a museum, as opposed to a palace, monument, etc. Qono (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    So that definition-choice (of what museum, what source) is yours, which would be WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 17:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    ThePromenader, Perhaps I was unclear. My definition of "primarily" is the dictionary definition. Whether or not an institution is primarily described as a museum is not up to me, it is up to reliable sources. An institution would be eligible for inclusion if the majority of reliable sources refer to the institution primarily as a museum. Qono (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    'Dictionary' is non-sequitur to this, as the end result is still a wikipedian choosing (not the source), WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 17:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    ThePromenader, I'm not sure I follow. I am saying that it is up to reliable sources to define an institution as primarily a museum. What about that is WP:OR? Qono (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's a wikipedian choosing the sources that 'fit' whatever item they want to include. Pretty simple. TP ✎ ✓ 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    ThePromenader, An editor using reliable sources to support their contributions is how this whole thing works. That isn't original research, that's just research. From WP:OR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Qono (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Are we cherrypicking non-sequitur 'rules' to 'fit' our WP:POV, now? ; )
We're not talking about individual facts or events here, we're talking about a list, and the list is the source here. But if a preponderance of sources list exactly the same museums in exactly the same way, great! If not, one can't just pick and choose where one chooses whichever museum one 'needs' to include, and that's the very WP:OR that seems to be being pushed for. And there's no further need for me to repeat myself, as no matter what 'argument' I am answering to, it is always a push for the same thing. TP ✎ ✓ 18:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
ThePromenader, I think I understand your position. There's no need for you to repeat yourself. Your comments here and in the other sections have described your position, and we can agree to disagree and let other editors provide their perspective as we try to build consensus. Thanks for clarifying, either way! Qono (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree Where the classification of a multi-functional institution is unclear, many sources will simply state that X is both a museum and something else, without saying or implying that it is "more" or "primarily" one or the other. We should not try to apply such a distinction when most sources do not imply such a distinction, even if a minority of them do. If there are more sources that acknowledge an institution as a museum than sources that do not acknowledge it as a museum, that should be enough for inclusion on the list, even if the sources that acknowledge it as a museum also acknowledge it to simultaneously serve a non-museum purpose. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cobblet, Let's take the Arc de Triomphe as a test case (setting aside, for the sake of argument, that it only sees 600,000 visitors annually). It is very clearly a monument first and foremost, yet it houses a small museum one level below the observation deck. Would we define it as a museum? Should it be included on this list?
    Or (since we're in Paris) what about Notre-Dame? It apparently sees 13 million visitors per year. It also has collection items that it cares for and exhibits. Should it be on this list? Can you clearly define the criteria that you would use to justify its inclusion? My concern is that without some sort of qualifier here, any place that stores and exhibits any object could be added. I think that this is ThePromenader's legitimate concern, which my "primarily as a museum" criteria is meant to address. Qono (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    You do realise how many levels of WP:OR that is? A wikipedian can't do that sort of 'definition' or 'inclusion', only a source can. I don't see why this is so hard to understand, and I don't see how it is possible to build 'consensus' on such... reasoning, as the result will be, again, WP:OR. And perhaps WP:SYNTH and WP:ESSAY, while we're at it. TP ✎ ✓ 20:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    ThePromenader, Establishing list criteria that is "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" is the responsibility of editors. It is not WP:OR, it is following the guideline WP:LISTCRITERIA and is necessary to build consensus on to move forward. Qono (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    I already pointed out how that is non sequitur to list... you really don't get it, do you? I'm sorry, but it's impossible to build consensus on that. TP ✎ ✓ 21:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    How many sources can you actually find that acknowledge either site as a museum? And how many sources can you find that do not acknowledge either site as a museum? Which are there more of? Here, I'll get you started. Neither site is on the TEA/AECOM list. France's Ministry of Culture classifies both as monuments rather than museums, even though it regards Versailles as a museum rather than a monument.[12] The European Group on Museum Statistics does not list either site, even though both received more visitors in 2017 than the listed Musée de l'Armée. Cobblet (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cobblet, I see what you mean and I would be inclined to not include them for the reasons you state. I think we may be saying the same thing. That is, the examples I gave are not primarily referred to as museums in the majority of reliable sources, and so shouldn't be included. I think the distinction you're making, the site of your disagreement, is that even if the majority of reliable sources don't refer to an institution as a museum primarily, if the majority of reliable sources refer to it as a museum at all, regardless of whether or not it is primarily a museum, it should be included.
    Let me take a stab at defining that as an inclusion statement: "Museums with over 2 million visitors annually that the majority of reliable sources refer to as museums." Does that sound right? Is that criteria you would agree with? Qono (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cobblet, Ok. That makes good sense to me. I've added a section below with that phrasing. Qono (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree Places that are both (for example) historical sites AND museums would be excluded despite overwhelming popularity (like The Alamo) which may have world-class museum exhibits. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree I think it goes against NPOV to insist a certain terminology is the gatekeeper. If it’s really an issue it can easily be addressed by explaining the list generally includes items characterized in a certain way, or explaining on those entries why they’re included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Only institutions that the majority of reliable sources refer to specifically as "museums" are eligible

  • Agree This is selection criteria that is "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources", as suggested by the Wikipedia guideline WP:LISTCRITERIA Qono (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree per discussion above. Of the five approaches given, this is the one that best satisfies the NPOV standard. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree because simply 'not enough information' about what 'reliable sources' are. At present the article depends on sources that are demonstrable authorities in their genre; a vague 'majority of reliable sources' pseudo-requirement forgoes that qualification (and is an open door to future WP:OR-WP:POV list-fight shennanigans). TP ✎ ✓ 10:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree We should just say what reliable sources say, not "the majority". If we do that, we're going to be stacking up and counting the number of reliable sources and arguing about which ones to count and which ones to discount. This is a terrible definition that will only lead to more squabbles. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    Buffs, I see your point, but I think that the issue is that some reliable sources might call an institution a museum while others only refer to it as a monument or something else. In those cases, how else would we determine if it should be counted as a museum or not? Evaluating reliable sources on a case-by-case basis seems to be the best way to apply due weight and keep a neutral POV, but I'm open to alternatives. Qono (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    IMHO, it should be based on general public acceptance/perception erring on the side of inclusion. Each one should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We cannot and should not do so based on the "majority of sources" or we'll end up in pointless debates:
    Person 1: The Heisenberg Gallery of Modern Machinery is clearly a museum and should be included. Reliable Source 1
    Person 2: The Heisenberg Gallery of Modern Machinery is clearly NOT a museum. It's just a collection of machines and should NOT be included. Reliable Source 2 Questionable Source 3
    Person 1: Fine here's two more sources that call it a museum Reliable Source 4 Reliable Source 5
    Person 2: Fine here's two more sources that don't call it a museum. Majority rules per consensus on talk page Reliable Source 6 Questionable Source 7
    Person 1: Fine here's two more sources that call it a museum so it's a majority Reliable Source 4 Reliable Source 5. On top of that, two of your sources are ridiculous personal websites...
    Stick with simple consensus with a bias towards inclusion. Buffs (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    Buffs, to make a long story short: I tried this once. Nobody liked it. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    Buffs, I would tend to a agree. If many reliable sources call an institution a museum, then we include it. If other reliable sources call it something else, that's fine, we should note the minority viewpoint in a footnote aiming for due weight in representing viewpoints among the sources, as Cobblet has suggested. Qono (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree Buffs is correct. This is a recipe for further chaos. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree I’m with Buffs as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

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.

Country in table

Is there a reason country is not listed as an attribute in the list? Seems helpful in some scenarios.

Iowajason (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No specific reason, I guess. Just a lack of space. The flag is supposed to stand for the name of the country, and takes less space. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Spelling change- Most visited museums

Why did someone change the title from Most Visited Museums and "Most Visited Art Museums to "Most-visited museums?" and "Most-visited art museums? Either one is equally correct. See the National Park Service site for "most visited parks", Vogue site for "Most popular films," etc. Please put it back to the original spelling. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete or not delete listings with 2018 figures

Should we delete from the list those museums for which we don't have 2019 figures? There are fifty-eight museums on the list, for which forty-three have the most recent (2019) figures, including the top twenty-eight on the list. There are fifteen museums for which which we have only 2018 figures. Should we delete these fifteen, at least until we can get such figures?

I recommend we do delete them, at least temporarily, until we can get more recent numbers for them. Otherwise I'm afraid the list as a whole will be will unreliable. Other opinions are welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I am going to remove those museums without 2019 figures.
@SiefkinDR: Why did you only update figures for European and American museums, including two with fewer than two million visitors, and delete the figures for most of the Asian museums without updating them? Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I updated all the museums, including Asian museums, which were included in the 2019 TEA;AECOM survey published this July. I did not select any museums myself. TEA/AECOM listed only the top twenty Asia-Pacific museums. I also updated those museums listed in the Art Newspaper survey, but that included only art museums. I added the two museums with figures just below two million because TEA-AECOM provided the figures. If you think they should be deleted, I will. I wanted to make the list a little longer, since they included fewer museums than last year.

If you have 2019 figures for other museums, with sources, please let me know and I'll update them, or feel free to update them yourself, with the sources. It's a lot of work doing this every year. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk)

By my count, you're missing eight of the twenty Asian museums on the TEA/AECOM list. You also appear to be missing at least two museums on the Art Newspaper list with more than two million visitors, although I do not have access to the original list. Not only that, but you've also removed museums not on either list that also have more than two million visitors, such as the National Museums of History and Anthropology in Mexico. I am happy to redo the update but I do not have access to an original copy of the 2019 Art Newspaper list – if you could send me a copy using Wikipedia's email function, that would be greatly appreciated. At least one the entries on List of most visited art museums (the Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil) is listed out of order, so I would like to be able to refer to the original. Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I am on vacation, and don't have the Art Newspaper list with me. The full list is in a newspaper, not on-line, so I can't send it to you, but when I get home I will double-check the numbers. I did not put a 2019 number for the American Museum of Natural History because it closed in June 2019 for renovation, and will not re-open until 2022. I do think it's a mistake to mix 2018 numbers in with 2019 numbers, it makes the list quite a mess. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering myself about the museums missing from the 2019 Art Newspaper list, then I read this on their site about the effect of the Coronavirus: "It is worth noting, too, that some museums in Asia and Italy were not able to take part in the survey as they were closed during our research period. We would like to thank the press officers at museums worldwide for their assistance. The outbreak, combined with an increased awareness within the art world of the scale of the climate crisis, are leading to a change in thinking about the role of museums and exhibition-going. Next year we may find that Art’s Most Popular is measured more by digital engagement than footfall."

I can put a note on the article to indicate why some museums are missing from the 2019 list.SiefkinDR (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's undesirable to mix the 2018 and 2019 numbers, so I'd really appreciate it if you were able to double-check the 2019 numbers. Alternatively, if you could simply take a picture of the newspaper list and send it to me, I'd be happy to check the figures myself. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
As you've probably seen, I've been updating the figures when there are 2019 figures available. I also put back the note in the lead, so people will understand why the list mixes up the different years. (Ideally, of course, it shouldn't. There should only be 2019 figures in the list). I will send you a copy of the Art Newspaper top hundred list, if you will give me your e-mail address. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: If you go to my user page and look under "Tools" in the menu on the left, you should see a link that says "Email this user". If you're having trouble using that, please let me know. Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem of mixing 2018 and 2019 figures

The mixture of 2018 and 2019 figures in the same list is a monumentally bad idea, and makes the list virtually useless. If anyone really insists on including 2018 figures, they should be put in a separate list, with the reason indicated. Unless someone objects strongly to this idea, and has a really good reason for including outdated figures, I will go ahead do this. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again you are missing 2019 figures for several Asian museums in the TEA-AECOM report that I've previously alluded to: they appear on p. 95 of said report. In addition, it is completely false that the Mexican museums you've put in the 2018 list do not have 2019 figures, as anyone who looks at the current version of the webpage we cite as the reference can easily verify. I hate to criticize and revert your work given the amount of time and effort you've evidently put into this, but it is evident you're unable to correct the mistakes you're making even when they're pointed out to you. I will take the time this weekend to properly update the 2019 figures I have access to, and if you can send me the Art Newspaper list by then I will check those figures also. Please do not make further changes to the page until I have done so. Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Please do not put 2018 and 2019 figures in the same list. You have not sent me your e-mail address to send you a copy of the Art Newspaper list. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: I had already replied to you about that in the thread above, but no matter. You should have received an email from me now, at the email address you provided to Wikipedia under the Preferences tab. Please let me know if you have not received it. Cobblet (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

National Cultural Heritage Administration

Cobblet, my apologies for my error about Tianjin Museum. Eye fatigue. I've been looking at too many tiny icons on a small screen.

I would suggest that the National Cultural Heritage Administration of China be mentioned in the opening paragraph as a major source, with 24 of the 60 museums.

Also, why is Mevlana Museum included again? It's a mausoleum and religious shrine, not a museum. How does it meet the definition given in the beginning the article? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can add the National Cultural Heritage Administration of China to the list of major sources.
As for the Mevlana Museum, which we have previously discussed ad nauseam, the predominant view in reliable sources is that it is both a museum and a mausoleum. For example, Britannica's article on Konya states, "The tekke (“monastery”) of Rūmī, comprising a number of buildings and his mausoleum, lies south of the city centre; since 1917 it has been used as an Islamic museum." Its article on Rumi states, "His mausoleum, the Green Dome, is today a museum in Konya; it is still a place of pilgrimage, primarily for Turkish Muslims." This paper presents a nuanced discussion of the conversion of the site to a museum – to quote from its abstract, "The Museum functions simultaneously as a sacred place and a tourist site and the role of visitors as pilgrims and tourists is ambiguous." The predominant view is neither that it is primarily a museum, nor that it is primarily not a museum.
Given that writing from a neutral point of view means we must represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and given that the predominant view in reliable sources on the Mevlana Museum is that it serves both museum and non-museum functions in equal measure, it should be included on the list. If we did not, we would not be fairly representing the predominant point of view. Our definition of a museum does not say a building cannot both be a museum and serve some other function, while our explanatory note in the lead helps explain the Mevlana Museum's unique nature. It is evident that sources treat the Mevlana Museum differently from the the way they treat sites like Versailles or Topkapı, which are generally referred to as palace first, museum second – just look at the names of the respective articles. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you read the article Mevlana Museum and seen the pictures? Does that seem to you like its comparable to the Louvre or the Museum of Natural History? I don't see any similarity to anything on the list. There's no one in a tomb, as far as I know, as the central attraction of any of the other museums. It's more comparable to Lenin's tomb in Moscow. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I have read not only what you asked, but several other reliable sources, such as the ones I've cited. NPOV is about reflecting what actual sources say, not one's personal opinion of what is and is not comparable based on a glance at a Wikipedia article (not itself an RS) and its pictures. The sources are clear: the Mevlana Museum functions as both a museum and a mausoleum. I have yet to seen any source suggest that it is somehow less of a museum (i.e., less able to fulfill the functions expected of a museum) because it also happens to be a mausoleum. It could only be compared to Lenin's tomb if Lenin's tomb is also described by sources as being both a museum and a mausoleum. Britannica, for one, does not. Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Mexican and Canadian Museums

Other Canadian and Mexican museums are included in the Art Newspaper list, but don't qualify for the global museums list since their attendance was less than two million. If we want to include museums from more countries and regions, we should lower the threshold to one million, or have separate lists by region, as was sometimes done in the past. I think that would be the best approach. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The list as it stands does include two Mexican museums with attendance over two million in 2019 which the Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM lists have always ignored, and which you had also deleted last month.[13][14] The page you created on List of most visited museums by region still exists, but has not been updated since 2018, and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject – there's no coverage of Africa and the Middle East at all, and coverage of Asia, Latin America and Russia is very much incomplete, since you did not look for statistics from sources other than the Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM lists.
The list is long enough as it is with 70 museums. Extending the list to museums with one million visitors raises the question of whether such a list can be complete – many museums and national cultural agencies (especially those in the developing world, but also in countries like Canada and Germany) do not regularly report annual visitor statistics. It will also invite more controversy on whether certain museums (the FC Barcelona Museum and Skansen are ones that immediately come to mind) ought to be listed. I am confident that the current list is comprehensive and neutral in its coverage; I am not confident that a longer list would be, particularly as I am the only contributor here who has bothered to look at sources not available in English, and my work here has been repeatedly undermined in the past (and continues to be so). Cobblet (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the lack of independent, outside ranking of the museums

The problem with not using the the rankings given by the TEA-AECOM and the Art Newspaper, and allowing anyone to post their own figures, is simply that the article then becomes a work of independent research by editors instead of being based on preumeably unbiased and reliable sources. Or it turns into promotion for or by the museums themselves. There's no way to verify figures. That is not permitted by Wikipedia rules, and furthermore it would certainly not have any credibility. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is definitely not a good way to go with this article. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You have been made fully aware numerous times that the problem with the TEA-AECOM and Art Newspaper sources is that neither is or claims to be a list of all the most visited museums in the world. Even in combination, they still do not represent all the most visited museums in the world. The present list, which is based entirely on reliably sourced figures, makes this perfectly obvious. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Turkey

Mevlana Museum? Never heard of it. I would bet that the expositions housed within the Topkapi Palace complex receive many more visitors. --BjKa (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

We generally don't include palace museums: please see note a. Cobblet (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institution

THe Smithsonian Institution, mentioned as a museum in the lead, is actually a trust instrumentality of the U.S Government. It has no museum collections, it is purely an administrative body. It oversees nineteen museums, twenty-one libraries, nine research centres, and a zoo. A better example of a popular non-art museum is the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We mention the National Museum of American History in the lead, but I see no mention of the Smithsonian per se anywhere in the article. Cobblet (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The Smithsonian Institution is not a museum, its a trust instrumentality of the U.S. government, which oversees the management of nineteen museums, twenty-one libraries, nine research centres, and a zoo. The national museums in Washington on the list, with the exception of the National Gallery, which is independent, are managed by the Smithsonian. That includes the National Air and Space museum, National Museum of Natural History, National African-American History Museum, National Museum of American History, and soon will also include the National Museum of Latino-American history, and National Museum of Women's History. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be referring to edits you're making to the Museum article: please discuss those edits on that article's talk page, not here. The Smithsonian is not mentioned in this article. I have reinstated your initial comment as it appears the deletion was accidental. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Taichung Museum

There's a question about the figure for the National Museum of Science and Technology at Taichung, in Taiwan, cited in the list of most-visited museums by region in the most current edition of the TEA-AECOM Museum Index. The figure for 2020 is 2,263,000 (as opposed to 2,650,000 for 2019), which puts it number two in the world in 2020. However, the list of top twenty museums in the world in 2020 in the same TEA-AECOM Museum Index does not include it.

I believe that the explanation is that attendance age the Taichung museum dropped by only 14.4 percent in 2020, while attendance at the National Museum of China, for instance, dropped by 78 percent.

I've put it in at the moment, but I'm prepared to leave it out. What do others think? Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The explanation is stated explicitly underneath the TEA/AECOM table of top 20 museums worldwide: "2020 attendance declines were largely due to agency restrictions limiting operating days and capacities in the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we have kept the 2019 rankings in place for the 2020 report." The museum in Taichung was not in the top 20 in 2019 and is therefore not included in that table. According to our 2019 list, it was 45th in the world that year with 2.65 million visitors. I can see no reason not to let it stay on the list. Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most-visited_museums/Archive_4&oldid=1157985747"