Talk:List of most-visited museums/Archive 3

Another problem with the inclusive approach
Another problem using a very broad definition of what a museum is, that, if we include a large number of historical monuments and religious shrines The Taj Mahal or Peterhof, or the royal palace in Thailand, or the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, all of which  would certainly qualify under the proposed  broader criteria, then serious art and history museums in smaller countries will have absolutely no chance to be on the list. As it is, it's difficult for museums in smaller countries to make the list. If we broaden the definition to include everything, it will be impossible. Thanks for considering this. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I believe your preferred OED definition is too narrow, I agree that the very broad ICOM definition you're alluding to – one that I personally prefer – represents the other extreme in being too broad; both on their own fail to represent a neutral point of view. Wikipedia must represent both viewpoints fairly and proportionately. Cobblet (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The most important point is that the source-based inclusion criteria be defined and adhered to, otherwise the article will become a free-for-all hellhole (like is was in the past, with 'interested parties' adding 'their' preferred museum (backed by 'their' favourite sources)). Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 08:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above from ThePromenader.  There is an existing article List of most visited palaces and monuments which is more appropriate for many of these institutions.  It can certainly be improved.  The reason why the TEA/AECOM lists and the Art Newspaper List are used as sources is that citing them avoids most, if not all,  issues of bias and promotion.  It's hard to accuse the Art Newspaper of national bias when they have editions in French, Russian, English and Chines.  Which of these is their alleged bias?


 * The previous lists, before these two sources were used, failed because of constant disagreement of editors, and editors promoting certain museums. There was endless bickering, deletion, and accusation of bias.  I hoped we could find a better way to do it by using two recognized and respected international lists as the primary sources.  I still hope we can find a way, but the tone of the accusations in this discussion so far unfortunately isn't very promising.  It is a good sign that a building is being constructed in Beijing to house the Forbidden City collection.  That would certainly be on  the Art Newspaper and AECOM lists, and could get more visitors than the Louvre. Cordially, SiefkinDR  15:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you're aware of the complications you've introduced by mentioning the non-English versions of the Art Newspaper. The Russian edition of the Art Newspaper states outright that the Peterhof State Museum Reserve was the most visited Russian museum in 2018. It classifies Peterhof as a "museum with territory", as opposed to an "art museum." In that last article, it also presents figures for art museums that are different from the figures given by the English-language Art Newspaper (the Hermitage – 4,374,600 people; the State Russian Museum – 2,192,200; the Tretyakov Gallery – 2,168,800). Moreover, the State Russian Museum does not appear on the English-language Art Newspaper list at all (or the TEA/AECOM list for that matter; TEA/AECOM lists the Tretyakov, which had a lower attendance). It references the Russian Ministry of Culture for all of these figures. It appears that each language edition of the Art Newspaper may be subject to its own biases. Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is not bias, and those seem to be references to articles, not lists of museums. I see a continued trend of finding fault with existing methods and other-contributor propos; how about, with that, making suggestions? Those seeking change obviously have something already in mind, otherwise they would be happy with the article as it is. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:ThePromenader, here are the lists that both articles are referring to. I have already made my suggestions here and here. Assume good faith on my part and I'll assume good faith on yours. Cobblet (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you keep saying that, I'm not assuming anything. But whatever the list referenced (thanks for the list, but those suggestions are not sources, but vague desires to 'keep it wide'), it must be both widely cited and stable, or in other words, maintainable (as a source). T P  ✎ ✓ 18:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, if someone has a 'preferred source', it's best to be forthcoming about it, otherwise it's hard to develop consensus about anything. T P  ✎ ✓ 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I already understand we differ significantly on how to apply the NPOV policy – you don't need to keep repeating yourself, although you're free to do so. But the imputing of hidden motives ("those seeking change obviously have something already in mind") is difficult to reconcile with an assumption of good faith. Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hidden motives? Au contraire, as who ever desires change without any idea of what that change could/should/would be? Or are we here just to express our... vague disgruntlement? ; ) T P  ✎ ✓ 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would ask you the same questions. But in any case, I think I have done far more than anyone else here in bringing a variety of reliable sources (both articles and lists) to everyone's attention, and I have done more than anyone else here to address (and not merely raise) concerns over specific inclusions and exclusions on the list. But enough about me. What do you make of the discrepancy between the Russian and English editions of the Art Newspaper with respect to Russian art museums, and of the Russian Art Newspaper's quoting of Ministry statistics on museums in general? Cobblet (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure yet, but pick one source (and indicate it in the article), for sure. But, again, do you have any ideas about a solution to that problem (since you're the one 'exposing' it)? T P  ✎ ✓ 18:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, I'm just here to ensure that the article doesn't return to its former 'constant because-vague free-for-all WP:POV-shitfight' status – I'd defer to SiefkinDR for advice on the most authoritative/cited sources out there, as it's his domain and he's done all the research already (since decades). Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 18:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not done much research in the case of Russian museums. I was quite prepared to admit the unlikelihood that palace museums like Peterhof and Tsarskoye Selo would be generally considered museums by a majority of reliable sources. The fact that the Russian-edition Art Newspaper calls them "museums with territory", which I wasn't aware of until SiefkinDR raised the issue of that magazine's existence, does slightly affect my willingness to admit that without further research. As for the State Russian Museum, I was aware that it was listed on p. 40 of the Russian Ministry of Culture's 2016 report on cultural statistics as a museum with 1.7 million visitors. That didn't trouble me at the time since it received fewer than 2 million visitors. But now that the institution reported almost 2.2 million visitors in 2018, I think we need to have a discussion about it.
 * What do you think? Do you believe the English-language Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM in their implications-by-exclusion that the State Russian Museum isn't an art museum or a museum at all? Or do you believe the Russian-language Art Newspaper and the Russian Ministry of Culture that it is a museum, and an art museum in particular? I was hoping that User:SiefkinDR, who I imagine has almost certainly been to that institution, would be able to provide us with some insight. Cobblet (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm very surprised that the Russian Museum isn't included; it's certainly a major art museum, second in St. Pete only to the Hermitage. I can't imagine why they would have left it out. That's a mistake, and I think it should be included.  But as I've mentioned before I wouldn't include either Tsarskoye Selo or Peterhof, because I think they're historical monuments.   They're important for their architecture, interiors  and gardens, not for any notable collections they have.  SiefkinDR (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Russian Museum's status as a museum is on much firmer ground than the palace museums, or Saint Isaac's Cathedral, which the Ministry and Russian Art Newspaper call a State Museum-Monument, or the Battle of Stalingrad State Museum-Reserve, which the Russian Art Newspaper calls a "thematic museum". I'd expect a perusal of reliable sources other than the English-language Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM to confirm that the Russian Museum's status is not significantly disputed by anyone else. Cobblet (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The State Russian Museum would certainly be elibible; are we sure it gets enough visitors? Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cobblet.  I think our  on this topic are not really very far apart; it's mostly semantic differences.   I'll be glad to cooperate with you on trying to straighten this out and get the best possible lists.    We first have to agree on the dividing line between museums and monuments.  Like you, I also want to include more museums and monuments from outside the traditional ones, it's just very hard to find good numbers from Asia and Africa and Latin America.  I've tried without any success to get the attendance in 2018 at the Royal Palace in Bangkok, for instance, which is a major monument.  If we can agree on the terms and goals,  I think we can fill in the rest without much difficulty. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we have a fundamental disagreement on how to define a museum, a specific disagreement with respect to whether the Mevlana Museum should remain on the list, and a minor quibble with respect to Versailles (we agree it shouldn't be on the list, but differ on what its official status is). More input from other editors on those issues would be appreciated. When it's always the same two editors involved, it's easy for a collaborative process to degrade into an adversarial process. Cobblet (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Johnbod, I think the Russian Museum should have enough visitors to be included. As Cobblett has found, the Russian Art Newspaper has good numbers, and so does the Russian Ministry of Culture.  A question to decide is whether to keep monuments separate from museums.  I think they should be kept separate. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know of no basis on which to doubt the accuracy of the Ministry's figures. Just to recap: the Art Newspaper, quoting the Ministry, gives the 2018 figure as 2,192,200, down from 2,509,192 the year before. I checked the Ministry's database to confirm that figure. For whatever it's worth (I know it's not a reliable source because it's self-published), here is the museum's annual report for 2018. I don't read Russian (the precise attendance figure might be in there somewhere), but the last line of the English summary on p. 410 says, "In 2018 the Russian Museum was visited by more than 2 million people." At the very least, we can say that the museum isn't contradicting the Ministry's figures – the latter presumably gets its figures from the former anyway. Cobblet (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I also see sense in keeping them separate: museums are buildings that preserve things (and memory – but again it is the source that applies this designation), while monuments are... pretty vague, actually, but they are most often declared as such (when they are such) by sources. The list would lose all sense if it contained both, anyhow, so best keept them separate. T P  ✎ ✓ 21:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Museum
I think the best definition I've seen of a museum is that in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

"An institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value. Also, a place where objects are exhibited."

The distinction between a museum and an historical monument is that a museum displays objects. In an historical monument, the building itself is the primary feature. A museum can move to a new location. An historical monument can't be moved. I would suggest we use this definition, citing Webster's.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the definition is a reasonable middle ground between the OED and ICOM definitions, referring as it does to "institutions" as opposed to a single "building", and being more specific with respect to museum functions, without being so general as to omit any mention of objects. It's similar to User:Qono's definition and I can accept it.
 * However, I think your interpretation of the distinction between a museum and a historical monument is problematic. I don't think it's right to say that the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican Museums or Napoleon III's apartments in the Louvre are capable of being moved to a new location, but that does not make them monuments rather than museums. The line between museum and monument is arbitrary and often dictated by administrative whims rather than consistent principle. I think we should be consulting reliable sources to see what they say, rather than try to impose our own abstract distinction that nobody actually follows in practice. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Versailles, Topkapi Palace and Peterhof
I don't really understand the urgency or logic of Cobblet and Quono to categorize Peterhof, the Topkapi Palace, and the Palace of Versailles, as "museums" rather than historic monuments. Do you really think that they're in the same category as the Museum of Modern Art, the Air and Space Museum in Washington, or the the Museum of Natural History? None of the three are primarily known as collections of objects. They're famous, with good reason, for their history. There is a separate article on monuments, where they are already listed. What is your objective here? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think Cobblet and I are arguing that these institutions should be classified as museums, only that when there is a significant number of reliable sources that refer to an institution as a museum, that we make a note of that, giving due weight based on the authority and prevalence of those references. I don't think the institutions you listed are the same as MoMA, etc... and I don't even think they should be on the list proper. But a footnote or a summary statement that accounts for their exclusion elsewhere on the page seems appropriate to me. Qono (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand. You would like to include a separate list, within this list,  of monuments that also might also be considered museums?  I don't see that that would really be necessary.  Topkapi Palace, the Palace of Versailles and Peterhof are already in the list of most visited monuments, and have been for some time.  (That list is out of date, and is being updated now).      People who are looking for statistics on Peterhof and Versailles will have no trouble finding them. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , No, not a separate list. We want to retain the mention of Versailles as it currently appears in the article: "the Palace of Versailles, Peterhof Palace and Forbidden City in Beijing are not, though they include some museum collections since they are considered primarily historical monuments." And correspondingly treat similar cases, with a very brief mention of them in the "Criteria for inclusion" section, perhaps with a footnote with more information. Qono (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, what are the page statistics for the article; is it well-ranked, popular, or cited everywhere or somewhere important? That might explain the 'absolute need' for these non-museums to be mentioned, if not in the list, somewhere in the article. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 19:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The readership of the article is not really that high; about 250 readers a day. The Art Newspaper and the AECOM lists get a lot more attention, since the lists are well-known and the organizations are respected. They're the ones I see cited most often in the press. The news media rarely cite Wikipedia as a source, since unfortunately it can sometimes be manipulated.SiefkinDR (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Palace Museum again
Viztor, I see you've created a new article, the Palace Museum, with exactly the same content as the Collections of the Forbidden City, and you are again making the claim that it is the most visited museum in the world, based, once again, on the article in the China Daily. This claim, as you know by now, is disputed by other sources. You can make the claim in the article, though it will be be challenged, but You cannot, simply based on this article and your single source, put it at the top of the list of most visited museums. It is disputed, and is clearly based on your original research and a non-neutral source. Once the collections are in an actual museum, which I understand they will be soon, then you can try again. Just want to make sure that you understand that. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ? It was moved by consensus, plz check first before making comments, or should I say accusations? I've added a template and sections. That's all. Viztor (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Side note: the article in the China Daily cites an article in the Beijing Evening Post, so in reality the claim has but one source, which should be noted in the article (done). Only when more sources supporting this claim are be found can this be presented as 'general, commonly accepted knowledge'. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 09:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the Mevlana Museum comparable to the Louvre or the Metropolitican Museum?
The Oxford English dictionary defines a museum as "a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic or cultural interest are stored and exhibited." How does that describe the Mevlana Museum? The Mevlana museum is a mausoleum and a pilgrimage site. I don't see how you can compare it with the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum, or the Air and Space Museum. Would you include the shrine in Mecca as a museum because it attracts a large number of visitors to a site of cultural interest? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the sources be doing the designation/categorisation? T P  ✎ ✓ 18:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Practical issues to overcome

 * It's true that the terminology is often confusing, particularly at places like Versailles, where there is a national museum within the Palace, although the Museum is under a separate administration, or at Peterhof, where the terms for monument and museum are sometimes used interchangeably; or in made-up words like  Museum-Park-Ensemble.    For that reason I think we should stick with the Oxford English Dictionary definition.

The other reason for using a more restrictive definition is, of course, space. If we add all of the most-visited historical monuments to the Museums, there will be several hundred listings in Europe and North America, and smaller museums, those in Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, will be pushed to the bottom, if they appear at all. Also, there unfortunately are no authoritative international lists of monuments, like TEA-AECOM and the Art Newspaper; there are only countries listing their own national museums and tourism industries. The only way to get around this is to publish separate lists for each region. I don't know how many editors are willing to do that work. Any volunteers? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Just so we're clear, User:SiefkinDR, I have no interest in adding all historical monuments to the list. I think it is practically infeasible to apply a definition of a museum that does not refer to a collection of tangible objects. I have no interest in adding several hundred listings of any kind to the list. See my reply to User:Qono above with respect to the Arc de Triomphe and Notre-Dame. I'm happy to help you maintain List of most visited palaces and monuments and List of most visited museums by region if we can reach a common understanding on the key issues here. Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments moved from the Peterhof discussion
The same situation applies for the Palace of Versailles. It is officially a Monument Historique, under the Ministry of Culture, not a museum. It does contain a museum, the Museum of the History of France, which was founded by Louis-Philippe in the 19th century to use the empty space, but most visitors bypass the museum to go see the Hall of Mirrors and the other ceremonial rooms. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree with your assessment of the site's character and I don't think it's likely that there would be more reliable sources that refer to Versailles as a museum than those who do not. But I'd really appreciate a source for it being a monument historique, because the citation removed by User:ThePromenader was to the Ministry's 2016 report on visitor statistics at its institutions. In it you will see on p. 8 the statement "5 MUSÉES ONT ENREGISTRÉ PLUS D’UN MILLION D’ENTRÉES", and the Château-musée de Versailles being one of those five museums. On pp. 12, 13, and 24 there are more references to Versailles being one of les grands musées and les musées nationaux. The same publication deals with monuments nationaux on pp. 14 and 15, and lists only two such monuments with more than a million visitors: the Arc de Triomphe and Mont-St-Michel. Versailles is never referred to as a monument in this publication, only as a musée.
 * You may also want to take a look at at the 2014 edition of the same publication by the Ministry. Again, the Musée et Domaine national de Versailles et de Trianon (I believe this is the full legal designation of the site) is specifically named on p. 14 as one of seven museums with over a million visitors, while the analogous section on monuments on pp. 36-37 does not mention Versailles. The table of musées nationaux, collections et galeries nationales on pp. 27 includes Versailles; the tables on pp. 40 and 141–143, which list all 83 monuments nationaux, do not include Versailles. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the list of buildings protected as monuments historiques. The buildings that comprise the Louvre, Orsay and Versailles are all on that list. (If you have trouble handling the raw data in the spreadsheet, see List of monuments historiques in Paris.) In other words, the Ministry of Culture designates certain buildings as monuments historiques. These buildings may house institutions that the Ministry classifies as either musées nationaux or monuments nationaux. And as I have shown above, Versailles, like the Louvre, Orsay, Orangerie, and others, is classified as a musée. Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While it may be tricky to define the difference, it is pretty clear to the visitor. A key difference is where the principal rooms are arranged to look as they might have done when the building was used as a palace (or whatever), as at Versailles, Windsor Castle or Hampton Court Palace, and where they are mostly full of museum displays, as at the Louvre & Orsay. Versailles has many museum-like rooms, but they are tucked-away, mostly not on the main floor. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your characterization, but the line is not always so clear. What's the difference between visitors who go to see the frescoes at the Sistine Chapel and Raphael Rooms in the Vatican Museums, and those who go to see the mosaics in Hagia Sophia? But all that is beside the point. The point is: the French Ministry of Culture considers Versailles a museum, whether we agree with them or not. This viewpoint should be mentioned in the article, even if Versailles should not appear on the main list, for all the reasons you and others have given, all of which I agree with. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much, but the Vatican Museums have very large areas set out as museum displays (and very important ones), and indeed built several centuries ago for just this purpose. Versailles undoubtedly has museums, but these are secondary, & I don't really see we need to mention them here. Topkapi Palace is a rather more difficult case, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's necessary to mention Versailles for the same reason it's necessary to mention the Beijing Palace Museum, Peterhof, and Topkapi; the site's administration, and the government agency supervising that site's administration, is of the opinion that the site is a museum, even though there are probably a larger number of reliable sources that do not share that opinion. In accordance with NPOV, we should report both viewpoints with due weight. Cobblet (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with, if a major institution is considered a museum by reliable sources, we need to explain how it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria of the list and what sources say about its status as a museum. Qono (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

New comments
When you describe the Palace of Versailles as a museum, I think you're talking about the Museum of the History of France, which is inside the Palace building, but separate. It was established after the 1830 Revolution by Louis-Philippe inside the empty building. It has collection of paintings related to French history, and particularly his own reign. It doesn't include the rest of the Palace, the Trianon, Petit Trianon, and the Park, which are the places where most visitors go. You can read about it Galerie des Batailles of in the Wikipedia article on the Palace of Versailles.

The official status of the Palace is described on the Web Site of the Palace as follows:

"The palace, the museum and the estate of Versailles has been a public establishment of an administrative nature since 1995, with independent administrative and financial management. It is supervised by the French Ministry for Culture and Communication."

As you can see, they're separate, but under common management. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:SiefkinDR, 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. You [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most_visited_museums&type=revision&diff=900553268&oldid=900552907 removed] the statement that Versailles was classified as a museum by its national cultural agency, with the edit summary: "Palace of Versailles is classified as an historical monument, not a museum, by the French Ministry of Culture, though it has a small museum." I have provided sources above to support the correctness of the statement that you removed; therefore, the statement should stay in the article. The situation is not dissimilar to that of the Beijing Palace Museum. The view that these are museums is a minority view and should be given lesser weight than the view that they are not museums; but the minority view is significant enough that it should be mentioned in the article (e.g., in a footnote). Cobblet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but anyone calling the Versailles palace a 'museum' would be laughed out of... wherever they're declaring it. Looking at the source, they call it a 'castle-museum' (while they call the Orangerie, Louvre and Orsay only 'Museum'). And that apellation seems to be for administrative purposes, like the publication.
 * That's a perfect example of the sort of selective interpretation of a selective source by a wikipedian wanting to say a selective thing... exactly the sort of practice this article doesn't need. T P  ✎ ✓ 21:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (Or any article, actually. Cheers.) T P  ✎ ✓ 21:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to laugh at the French Ministry of Culture for calling Versailles a museum. But that is exactly what it does in calling Versailles a grand musée and musée national on pages 8, 12, 13 and 24 of the 2016 report. Moreover, the Ministry is not alone in doing so: the European Group on Museum Statistics also reports Versailles being France's second most-visited museum in 2017. Laughing at the Ministry and the work of museum professionals is not going to change what they have consistently always said. Trying to ignore that viewpoint and hide any mention of it is exactly the sort of practice forbidden by NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided a possible explanation for the ministry's use of the term (and that's not laughing at them, so thanks for the misrepresentation)... and rather than an answer to that, we get digging in, with more selective sources, with interpretive wikilawyering-'authority'? That's the exact opposite of anything reason or reality.
 * And speaking of the latter, what is the prepondering/dominant definition of Versailles among all authoritative and widely-cited sources? That should be the barometer, here. T P  ✎ ✓ 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I ignored your "possible explanation" because that is your selective interpretation of the source. As you always say, we should be letting sources decide, not us. That is why I am giving you more sources. NPOV requires that we accord due weight to all significant viewpoints, not search for a "dominant" viewpoint and ignore all the rest. Perhaps you don't think the viewpoint of the French Ministry and EGMUS is significant, and that's fair enough; but I disagree. I think the work of museum professionals and administrators should be accorded some weight. In the end, they are the ones collecting this data in the first place; their opinion on how their own statistics should be interpreted should at least be accorded some respect. I'm not asking to put Versailles on the list. I'm only asking that the article say in a footnote that the French Ministry considers Versailles a museum. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Declaring Versailles a 'museum' represents a minority view point. So why exactly should that be chosen over the dominant, mainstream one? The desires of one wikipedian (selecting selective sources matching their selective (and, in this case, misinformed) POV)? No matter how one describes it (or goes about it), that is what's going on here. T P  ✎ ✓ 22:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the prepondering/dominant definition of Versailles among all authoritative and widely-cited sources? Even if one is going to ignore the answer to that question, it has to be answered, first. T P  ✎ ✓ 22:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How is saying in a footnote that the French Ministry considers Versailles a museum, while omitting Versailles from the actual list of museums, privileging the minority viewpoint over the majority viewpoint? The list is a presentation of the majority viewpoint, is it not? If you would like the footnote to state clearly that the opinions of a national ministry conflict with the viewpoint more commonly found in other reliable sources, I would be completely OK with that. And I'm not going to answer your question on defining Versailles, because I am tired of your insinuations (and now outright accusations) of wikilawyering every time I cite a source. I feel that you are not assuming good faith on my part. (And if you're going to just ignore an answer you don't like anyway, what's the point of me even trying?) Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that that list represents the majority viewpoint? One has to know what the majority/most used/most cited practice is to answer even that. Why wouldn't one want to answer that question? Anyone actually interested in the facts would – that speaks pretty well for itself. Citing wikipedia 'rules' as 'justification' for 'enforcing' a minority POV (and the rule cited is not for that) is... what? No need for accusations when that speaks for itself, as well. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 22:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have cited numerous sources in this and other discussions: you have only asked people to provide sources, while not citing any yourself, and then called me a wikilawyer when I responded to your requests. I'll let others decide whether the burial of a minority viewpoint in a footnote constitutes "enforcing" that viewpoint over the majority viewpoint that is reflected in the contents of the list in the article's body. My patience with you has worn out. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All that has been demonstrated here is an unwillingess/inability answer a simple question, and a continued push to promote that POV. The article's present sources are already the evidence you demand (but the burden of evidence is on the person making the claim (that Versailles = museum)), yet the 'need' to cite wikipedia 'rules' demonstrates that the person citing them already knows the situation and has already done the research – otherwise they wouldn't 'need' to do that! <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 04:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that a footnote gives appropriate weight to this apparent minority viewpoint on Versailles. Qono (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see acknowledgement that it's a minority viewpoint – but that itself is a reason not to include it in the list. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 04:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources on the nature of Versailles
SiefkinDR has already provided the Versailles website's own description of the site above (under "New comments"). Versailles is not listed as a museum by TEA/AECOM and the Art Newspaper, the sources primarily referred to in the article. Versailles is listed as a museum by the French Ministry of Culture and the European Group on Museum Statistics. These are the only four entities I know of that report lists of attendance statistics at French cultural sites on a regular basis. Here's Larousse on the château de Versailles: "Aujourd'hui, Versailles est à la fois musée d'Histoire et ensemble palatial patiemment reconstitué. Comme musée, y sont conservés de nombreux dessins, gravures, sculptures et pas moins de 6 000 peintures (anciennes : du xve s. au xviiie s. ; modernes : grands tableaux historiques commandés aux peintres du xixe s.), dont une petite partie seule est exposée. Les appartements du palais comptent parmi les lieux les plus célèbres et les plus visités de France : grands appartements du roi et de la reine, reliés par la galerie des Glaces, chapelle, Opéra, petits appartements du roi et de Mme du Barry, appartements du Dauphin, de la Dauphine et de Mesdames (filles de Louis XV), cabinets de Marie-Antoinette."

Britannica begins its article by saying, "Palace of Versailles, former French royal residence and centre of government, now a national landmark." In describing Louis-Philippe's creation of the Museum of French History in the palace, it says, "While many of the 6,000 paintings and 3,000 sculptures held by the museum are not available for public viewing, a portion of those holdings are on display throughout the palace."

The Grove Dictionary of Art begins by calling Versailles a "town and château in France." The modern history of the site is described as follows: "The new museum and the old royal apartments within the main central block opened in 1837. Since then the Musée National du Château de Versailles has maintained these two aspects: the Galeries Historiques comprising the Musée de l’Histoire de France, and the royal and princely apartments in the central part of the palace, which have been restored and refurbished in successive campaigns since they were opened." Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , It seems to me like the reliable sources you cited calling it a museum — or at least partly a museum — justify its inclusion in the article if not in the list proper. Should it be added with a note about the reliable sources that include and don't include it? Should it be added to the list itself, or as a note somewhere about why it isn't included? Qono (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be reinstated to Note "a" alongside the other palace museums in a similar situation, with citations to the French Ministry of Culture and EGMUS. To put it on the main list would be giving the French Ministry's view undue weight: it would ignore TEA/AECOM's omission of the site, and also the fact that in each of the three encyclopedia entries I've provided, it's quite clear that only one component of the site takes on the function of a museum. Moreover SiefkinDR is correct in noting that the museum component sees significantly fewer visitors than the palace apartments and exterior gardens.
 * Also, the currently uncited statement that several institutions such as Versailles are "considered primarily historical monuments" needs rewording, because as written it is neither precise nor accurate. With respect to precision, "historical monument" is a notoriously vague term, as several contributors here have pointed out. With respect to accuracy, you'll note that it is actually rather uncommon for Versailles to be referred to as a "monument" per se. The only source that does so – the administrative list of monuments historiques – also includes the buildings housing the Louvre and the Orsay under that designation, because it's talking about buildings, not institutions. As far as I can tell, really the only word used universally to describe the Palace of Versailles is, well, "palace". Cobblet (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , A note as you mentioned makes sense to me. Feel free to reword the bit referring to it as a historical monument. Qono (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Holy crap, we're even cherrypicking-reinterpreting the very comments made in this page. SiefkinDR already clearly demonstrated how and why the museum in Versailles is not all of Versailles, and the Larousse quote does exactly the same, yet here is demonstrated a 'need' to count that minor part 'as' the whole (with attendance numbers too?). The Ministry of the Culture internal report calls Versailles a 'chateau-musée' while it calls other museums 'museums', but here we see a 'need' to extract but one half of that designation and, again, present it as the whole. The Egmus organisation's 'definition' of "museum" is vague as hell, and 'historical monument' is not 'but a vague term', it is an actual heritage-type-designation (as the Cultural Ministry pdf even shows) governed by the Minister of Culture and the Centre des monuments nationaux. And, again, a complete avoidance of the fact that most sources do not refer to Versailles as a 'museum'.

All that demonstrates is a 'need' to have Versailles as a whole, against all evidence, designated as a 'museum' – and the only question that raises is "why"? <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 04:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you are misunderstanding. Cobblet and I are not advocating that Versailles be listed as a museum, only that — somewhere in the article outside of the list itself, a footnote is what Cobblet mentioned and that makes sense to me — we mention that there are a significant number of reliable sources that do call it a museum, and explain why we are not including it in the list despite those references. A footnote on this would not be a prominent part of the article and would be according the right amount of due weight to these viewpoints while enriching and explaining the variety of viewpoints on this matter. Qono (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Précisément. By the way, here is the French legislation declaring the musée des châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon one of France's musées nationaux. Cobblet (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the footnote clarification. About the 'new reference': the paper is again administrative, and that is why all one can find with 'Versailles, musee' search is that: both are under the tutelle of 'Museums of France' (and submit to the same legislation concerning inter-institution exchanges, etc.), thus the internal designation.
 * That took some extreme digging and a miscomprehension (because the only other alternative is 'misrepresentation') of the actual roles of those establishments. If it is only to support the 'some may say that it is a museum' footnote manoeuvre (because a few (fir) trees cannot be made to represent an entire (oak) forest), even that is misguided, and I still don't see the point of this idea. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 19:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. Musée de France 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) 19:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That changes nothing in the fact that most sources, and most everyone here, do not consider Versailles as a 'museum'. What is the goal of making a (dug-up) fir seem an oak forest? <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 19:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most sources, including the three reference works I've cited, recognize that parts of the Versailles site – the Museum of the History of France and the Palace of Versailles Research Centre most obviously – fulfill the functions that one would expect of any museum. Can you find any sources that do not recognize at all the museum functions of the Versailles site? Cobblet (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But the parts do not represent the whole, and the burden of proof is on the claimer (claiming that the part 'is' the whole?). So what's the goal of that? <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 20:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were claiming the part was the whole, I would be asking to put Versailles on the list. You are still unable to realize that that is neither what I'm claiming nor what I'm asking for. I am merely saying that in the case of sites like Beijing Palace Museum, Versailles, and Peterhof, the article should explain that it is distinguishing between visits to a museum, and visits to a site that is partly a museum. This is not a distinction that all sources make. 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? Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Versailles is already mentioned in the article. What change exactly are you proposing? Qono (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note b (formerly note a) mentions the Palace Museum and Peterhof, but it doesn't mention Versailles, even though Versailles is a clear-cut example of the same thing: a palace that is classified as a museum by its national cultural agency. When I originally wrote that text last week, Versailles was one of the examples I gave. I don't know why some editors are trying so hard to remove that example from the note. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I support including Versailles in that footnote. If we explain the Palace Museum and Peterhof there, why not Versailles as well? My only thought is that the footnote is getting rather long, and it might be worthwhile to simplify the criteria for inclusion a little and having a separate "notable exceptions" section beneath the list that addresses these places that are important but not quite museums proper, and so not on the list proper. Qono (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm reapeating myself when I say 'fine if it's for the for footnote (not for list inclusion), but what's the point/importance of the footnote? That was my question, and getting more 'yes it is a museum' 'evidence' as an answer to that was a bit puzzling. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 21:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear you say that clearly. 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. SiefkinDR removed Versailles from that footnote with the edit summary: "Palace of Versailles is classified as an historical monument, not a museum, by the French Ministry of Culture, though it has a small museum." I was responding to you with evidence that to show that SiefkinDR was mistaken with respect to the first part of that statement ("not classified as a museum"). The second part of his statement ("has a small museum") is reasonable, and I was not trying to prove the objective correctness of the Ministry's view. Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would add a further note of clarity to note that, in those administrative documents (all the 'museum-y' documents about Versailles that can be found, a not-coincidence that further demonstrates this point) you're mistaking jurisdiction for 'designation'. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 21:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Administrative jurisdiction derives from administrative designation. And the requirements for Versailles to merit the administrative designation of a museum are the types of things that one would expect a museum to do. The Ministry of Culture thinks Versailles meets those requirements; therefore it designates Versailles a museum; therefore it assumes jurisdiction over the administration of Versailles. Saying that I believe the Ministry designates Versailles a museum is not the same thing as saying that I believe Versailles is a museum. If you're still under the impression that I believe the latter, you are mistaken. I agree that we should explain that our list does not necessarily accept administrative designations of museums as determinative of their nature as museums. We should, however, note the existence of such administrative designations. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That unnecessary convolution is beneficial neither to the public or the administration, especially since you seem to be still largely in the dark about what everything's real role is. This is exactly why we stick to what most sources say. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the Palace of Versailes has a museum function. It contains an art museum in one wing.  But the vast majority of visitors go to see the Palace buildings, rooms and gardens, not the museum.  Comparing Versailles with The Metropolitan Museum or Air and Space Museum is comparing completely different things.  Same with Peterhof.  It is completely different in form and function than the Hermitage, though it does have a small museum.  With Peterhof and Versailles, the building, not the collection, is the main attraction.  Please look at the OED definition of a museum, and the other dictionary definitions. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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? Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course the Palace of Versailes has a museum function. It contains an art museum in one wing.  But the vast majority of visitors go to see the Palace buildings, rooms and gardens, not the museum.  Comparing Versailles with The Metropolitan Museum or Air and Space Museum is comparing completely different things.  Same with Peterhof.  It is completely different in form and function than the Hermitage, though it does have a small museum.  With Peterhof and Versailles, the building, not the collection, is the main attraction.  Please look at the OED definition of a museum, and the other dictionary definitions. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor courtesy
Quono, it would be nice if you waited until other editors finished making their edits, before undoing them and re-writing them. That's normal Wikipedia courtesy. Thanks. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , I don't know what you're referring to and this comment would be more appropriate on my user talk page. Qono (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This was my error; my edit disappeared because you were editing at the same time, but you weren't aware of that. My apologies. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)