Talk:Pergamon Museum

Untitled
Opening paragraph

It says "It houses original-sized, reconstructed monumental buildings such as the Pergamon Altar, the Market Gate of Miletus, and the Ishtar Gate, all consisting of parts transported from the original excavation sites."

"Consisting of" would have to mean they are built entirely of parts transported from the original excavation sites. Presumably that's not true? So should it be "containing" rather than "consisting of"? Sarabseth 01:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That whole sentence
The entire sentence is flawed.

"It houses original-sized, reconstructed monumental buildings such as the Pergamon Altar, the Market Gate of Miletus, and the Ishtar Gate, all consisting of parts transported from the original excavation sites."

It does not. The buildings have not been reconstructed. Parts of them (most of the Market Gate, much of the Pergamum Altar - and by convention it's Pergamum in English, not Pergamon, though the museum name cannot be objected to, since it's in Germany - and much of the Ishtar Gate) have been mounted in realistic and to-scale settings, but they have been MOUNTED, not built. There are no foundations. The Pergamum sculptures from the plinth are displayed separately around the walls of the containing room. The Processional Way to the Ishtar Gate is a truncated model (so not "original-sized" either). The pieces of the Gate of Miletus are held in place with iron struts, whose damage during wartime bombing has threatened the entire structure, now or until very recently under intense renovation.

I would prefer "It houses substantial reassembled sections of the original structures of the Pergamum Altar, the Market Gate of Miletus and the Ishtar Gate, arranged in settings allowing the public to access their spaces more or less as in their original locations."

name in English?
There is some confusion on the English name. On the English homepage, the museum calls itself Pergamonmuseum. Case for a rename? Gryffindor 16:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so, yeas. ;) Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the name used in English is Pergamon Museum. The web page cited has simply failed to translate it. - Nunh-huh 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote and received an email from the museum. They corrected their homepage which used to have an error apparently and indeed the name in English is written in one word, they say. Gryffindor  15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, I'd be reluctant to follow them there, even if it's "official". Sounds like yet another of those silly self-important PR gimmicks by German institutions who believe their name is so sacred you mustn't adulterate it with the rules of real language. English just doesn't do compounds like that, and common English usage is highly unlikely to follow them on this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We use the the words used by English speakers to name articles, not the words that people would prefer English speakers to use. - Nunh-huh 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance
The Museum should be only have a Mid-Importance? One of the most important and biggest archeological museum in the world? The biggest and most important Museum in Germany? I can't belive that. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're insinuating. By sheer number of visitors it can't match the British Museum or the Louvre, but by quality and significance of exhibits, it is clearly on par with both of these. I doubt, though, it is the most important museum in Germany. To introduce a ranking by (perceived) importance would be futile, anyway.- -- HH 85.180.214.193 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Annual number of visitors
According to the German page, the number of visitors was 1,135,000 in 2007, as opposed to 850,000 in 2006. As the former figure is more recent, I've updated the entry accordingly. -- HH 85.180.214.193 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted
"It was suggested that the collection should be returned to Turkey (original country of the excavations)."

Uncited inflammatory claim
I moved "There is controversy over the legitimacy of the acquisition of the collection." to talk page because: 1) it is uncited and has been uncited for about a year, 2) I tried to find a ref in google but only came across some second hand references to Turkey that did not identify a proper source, and 3) I saw a number of red flags in the few second hand sources that I did see, including "Occupy Museums" which is a group that technically promoted illegal fraud to gain access to the museum. If a proper citation is found I think this could be reintroduced into the article, but I would lean towards removal until that source is identified. Open to suggestions...Wiki-proofer-and-tagger (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * However, now the entire Article is deprived of any refence to the origins of the collection. The ancient city the museum refers to, or the Altar, which is the main piece is not even mentioned in the article. No reference to how the museum is built after 1904 whatsoever like the collection just appeared there due to the lack of "display space". I would classify this as "cleverly-disguised" or misdirection. 85.107.64.197 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pergamon Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702180239/http://www.3d-turizm.ru/germaniya/berlin/pergamskiy_muzey.html to http://www.3d-turizm.ru/germaniya/berlin/pergamskiy_muzey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)