Talk:Winter Palace

Weasel words - what has been described as "the greatest hangover in history"
Googling to find a source for this phrase only brings up pages quoting this wiki article, and a few similarly vague and unsourced attributions of the remark to "some say" or at best "historians say", without naming any of the historians. Anyone know an actual source for this? 118.93.238.210 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is referenced in the body of the article; although the link leads to only a description of the book. It's from A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924 (published 1996) by Orlando Figes. There's abetter link to the quote here. I'll replace the link in the reference to this one too. Giano    (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a contradiction in the article about how long is the principal façade, 250 m or 150 m
First: "The green-and-white palace has the shape of an elongated rectangle, and its principal façade is 250 m long and 100 ft (30 m) high." Then afterwards: "The principal façade is 500 ft (150 m) long and 100 ft (30 m) high."194.126.101.134 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Herd of Cows?
Regarding this edit that Nicholas I kept a herd of cows on an upper floor - it is referenced to this book. I am wondering how reliable it is - I have read most authoritative books on the Winter Palace and haven't come across this - there is often a reference to a trespassing peasant and his family living in the attic with his own illicit cow (probably apocryphal), but I've never come across a legitimate herd. Why would the Tsar want a herd on an upper floor? He could have had a huge herd properly housed in a nearby park or even at Tsarskoe Selo a short distance away. Nicholas I reigned in the mid-19th century,this just does not ring true to me. I wonder if Ghirlandajo or any of our Russian editors can verify this. Giano   (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds dubious to me, if only because cattle are legendarily bad at going up and down stairs so they'd need either access ramps or an elaborate system of pulleys and platforms, neither of which exist. It was a documented practice in Russia for even relatively wealthy families to bring livestock into the house during harsh winters to mitigate the need to heat more than one building, but I'm sure Nicholas I's resources could have stretched to insulating a barn. (While absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, it seems beyond the bounds of reason that the revolutionaries wouldn't have—er—milked "the Tsar kept his cows in more luxury than his subjects kept their families" for all it was worth had it actually been true, and I've never seen any reference to this in any Soviet-era source.) The book in question is published by Virgin Books, who have a well-deserved reputation for poorly edited drivel, while looking at the other output of its author doesn't exactly scream out "credible historian" to me. &#8209; Iridescent 12:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I too have a huge problem believing this. By the mid-19th century the Romanovs were as civilised as any other royal family. Putting aside the obvious nuisance of having a herd of cows in the house, as a country boy, I know that dairy cows drink massive volumes of water, and as one who's studied architecture and design, I know that while the Winter Palace may have had running water on its lower floors in the 19th century, it wouldn't have had it on the upper-most floors (lack of gravity) - no servants could have kept up with the constant carrying of buckets of water up numerous flights of stairs - not to mention straw and hay. Then we also have the problem or cows urinating and excreting, the damp would have collapsed the ceilings below, as many of these were made of moulded papier mache, this too seems unlikely. Finally, if the Tsar really did want a herd of cows in his beautiful and newly rebuilt palace, he would have kept them on the stone-floored ground floor or basement. So I will notify the editor who added this information and if they don't object, I'll remove it in a couple of days.  Giano    (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to this reference the cows were kept on the roof. This Google book from 1973 mentions:
 * The sources do not seem to agree on the exact location. Personally I find this information strange and unrealistic. Especially that the cows were in a room adjacent to the maids of honour. That's really bizarre. Dr.   K.  16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What I'd consider far more likely is that a herd of cows was at some point kept in the palace grounds—in the same way that in describing the deer chase at Windsor Great Park one might say "the English royal family maintained a herd of deer at Windsor Castle for hunting"—and through garbled mistranslation it went from "kept in the palace grounds" to "kept in the palace". (Aside from all the points above, I doubt even a modern concrete building could support a herd of cows on the roof; a full grown cow weighs well over a ton, and that's before you factor in the weight of feed, water and shelter.) &#8209; Iridescent 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (adding) I think I've tracked the origin of this myth down; it stems from a letter by Helmuth von Moltke the Elder in 1878 (search this document for "cows"). Even then, von Moltke clearly described the cows as apocryphal rather than fact. &#8209; Iridescent 17:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find. I searched the document and Moltke calls it a legend. I will remove the edit from the article, since I agree with you and Giano. Dr.   K.  20:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

¶ Well, I am very sorry if this story is apocryphal. The book I used is one of those compilations of the Ripley's-Believe-It-Or-Not variety but I could not find another source for the herd of cows. On the assumption that the book was accurate, I thought the item was interesting, as it was part of collection of how various palaces and castles had been abused or misused in various ways. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC) I provide the words verbatim from the book, Royal Babylon by Karl Shaw: [blockquote] "The Russian court was the dirtiest of all, a mixture of fantastic extravagance and mediaeval squalor. ... The Winter Palace of St Petersburg during the reign of Czar Nicholas I was considered to be one the biggest and most opulent royal residences in the world, with 1,600 rooms and 4,000 inhabitants. It was, however, perpetually alive with vermin, mostly because of the Czar's reluctance to get rid of the herd of cows he always kept on the top floor to ensure a regular supply of milk for his family."[/blockquote] Shaw's book does not have footnote references for his various stories but there is a 3-page bibliography, of which several books might mention the Czars. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The trouble with "beleive-it-or-not" books is that "believe-not" is seldom the chosen option. By the mid-19th century the Russian Court functioned on much the same lines as other royal courts throughout Europe - quite hygienically. Possibly there were a couple of cows kept in an out-building or remote corner of the domestic area, but a whole herd (how big is a herd?) in an upstairs room just isn't possible. The roof, behind the parapet, is pitched so there'd be no cows there. The Winter Palace had nothing even resembling a garden or grounds until the end of the 19th century, but the tsars owned several smaller palaces all close to St Petersburg and most had large parks/estates where cows could live in comfort and their milk be easily transported to the Winter Palace. However, by that time, St Petersburg was a large flourishing city full of shops selling and supplying provisions to aristocratic homes. There are numerous apocryphal stories about the palace which just aren't true - Alexander II keeping his bastard children on the floor above his wife, and Peter the Great's son defecating on the floor and using the curtains as loo paper being just two of the most often repeated. So I think until we have some better reference, we had better leave it out. Giano    (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can find sources for a herd of cows being kept in the Admiralty Meadow (now Alexander Garden) prior to it being turned into a formal garden in 1805, which may account for the story; it's entirely plausible that during snowstorms they were brought into the stables of the old palace to prevent them freezing, and a visiting dignitary or ambassador saw them and spread "they keep cows in the palace!" on his return. What I can believe is that a herd of cows was kept across the river on Peterburgsky Island (now Petrogradsky Island) to serve as an emergency food source for the Peter & Paul Fortress garrison in case of a siege or a failure in shipments; the Tsars were (rightly) paranoid about the loyalty of the Petersburg garrison. &#8209; Iridescent 11:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect Iridescent above has nailed the myth. I have just dug out The Romanovs: 1613-1918 by Simon Sebag Montefiore (p.366) and found "It (the Winter Palace during the reign of Nicholas I) was so vast that it was said a peasant servant brought not only his entire family, but a cow to provide milk for his children, and no one noticed until the stench of the cow became unbearable" While this story is probably apocryphal too (note the "it was said"), if the tench of one cow was unbearable, imagine a whole herd. I have a feeling I have read somewhere about maids-0f-honour unsuitably housed, I will keep searching as we may get a clue to the fact or myth there.  Giano    (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The source for this particular story is a memoir by Alexandre Benois, whose parents were close to the royal family. Benois claims that after the 1880 explosion (arranged by Stepan Khalturin) a cow "was discovered" in the palace attic. It was supposedly kept there to provide milk for the children of royal servants. Source: А. Бенуа. Мои воспоминания. Vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. P. 380. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Giano, Tsarskoe Selo is more than 20 miles from the Winter Palace. In winter, the milk delivered to the capital from Tsarskoe Selo would have been neither warm nor all that fresh. The royal stables in the Winter Palace did house some jenny asses (their milk being considered wholesome for consumptives) and a cow for the frail Empress Alexandra. In October 1829, the Minister of Imperial Court and Properties asked General Zakharzhevsky to send to the Winter Palace "a good, healthy cow with a dairymaid and suitable dishes". This animal was so VIP that one Prince Dolgorukov, a royal stallmeister, was dispatched to examine the cow and provide its accommodation in the palace stables. Source. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ghirla: I would have thought the milk would stay fresher if cold, and even in the 19th century and winter it would not have been beyond the Tsar's resources to bring milk daily such a distance. After all palm trees were transported from the hot houses at Tsarskoe Selo to the Winter Palace for balls in Winter. However, I knew you would know the answer and a solitary cow in a stable sounds rather ore plausible than a herd on an upstairs floor. Giano    (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Visitors
I replaced the WP:POV, WP:PEACOCK sentence that describes the museum in WikiTravel touristy, informal language. Subjective. The data is given and may be interpreted in any manner by the reader. We don't "spin" the data like the tv does. That is why they are television and have poor credibility. As an encyclopedia, we don't spin data, even if the citation does so. If the citation does so, maybe we need a more credible reference. Student7 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What complete rubbish you are talking. I had to read it twice to understand what you were attempting to say. The Winter Palace is one of the world's greatest and best known museums. I cannot believe anyone would argue with that or ask for it to be referenced, and to state it, is not "spin" but plain truth. We are here to educate and some kid in Mississippi, who has never left the USA, may not be aware of that - so we tell him. Giano    (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Avoid WP:ATTACK. WP:AGF. Have you read WP:PEACOCK? Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia. It is hype for editors to promote a place or person. If the facts are properly presented, why should we? It's prominence will be obvious to the reader. The kid from Mississippi watches tv probably too much. We shouldn't try to out-hype them. That is why we use an objective tone, instead of a subjective one. This is not an exercise in journalism. This is why we don't take ads. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having a problem communicatingStudent7. While you are obviously very familiar with with links to Attacks, good faith and peacock, you seem less familiar with how to write a Wikipedia article. It is quite permissible to describe what is commonly regarded as one of the world's most famous museums as one of the worlds' most famous museums. Had as I said "3.5 million culture-hungry people visit the sublime Winter Palace lured by its glorious green façade, embellished and burnished with golden, honeyed filigree", you would have cause for complaint, but I don't. Giano    (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The current wording promotes visiting the museum. Wikipedia should not do so. We are not advertising visiting either St. Petersburg, nor the Winter Palace. A head count is objective and sufficient for our purposes. Please see WP:POV. "Commonly regarded" is exactly what we don't want - a subjective analysis. This is covered in the Wikipedia Policy. We can say, if available in a WP:RS, that it is the nth most visited museum in the world. That would be objective and WP:NPOV. Student7 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are talking complete and utter rubbish. Saying that a place is well known is not saying a place should be visited. The Winter Palace holds the largest collection of paintings in the world, so stating it is well known is acceptable if not an under-statement. Especially as the article documents the transformation from Imperial residence to public museum.  Giano    (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:ATTACK.

The sentence currently reads "Today, as part of one of the world's best known museums, the palace attracts an annual 3.5 million visitors.[91]" We seem to agree on the number of visitors. The word "attracts" is point of view. Wikipedia does not know why the visitors go there. Whether they were "attracted," whether the museum is "attractive." Maybe it was just on the short itinerary of the tour they selected and they were forced to go along. Wikipedia neither knows nor cares whether they were "attracted" or not. Nor does this adjective contribute to their knowledge of the place. Similarly, with the phrase "part of one of the world's best known museums." This is a vague statement. How many comprise "world's best known?" Ten? 100? 1000? Where does it stop? What do we, or our readers care? WP:NPOV says "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Also "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." The current statement clearly sympathizes with the museum. A related essay says Let the reader decide. You want the kid in Mississippi to decide that it is a good museum. That is hardly necessary with the information the rest of the article has furnished. It is (at best) gilding the lily.

If I try to sell you a used car, will you be more likely to buy it if I say that "it is one of the most popular in the world", or the car has 15,000 miles with an average of $125/year maintenance over three years? Student7 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I woudl be very unlikely to buy a car from you under any circumstances. The Winter Palace is indisputably part of the Hermitage Museum, which is indisputably one of the World's best known museums. There are a handful in the World which do deserve such a title and one does not need to justify saying it. The museum attracts visitors because of it's contents. People woudl not visit if it had no contents. Once could argue (although I wouldn't) that art lovers are attracted to the paintings as metal to a magnet. In this article the word "attracts" is quite justified and to say otherwise is pedantry. Your argument that 3.5 million disinterested people just happen to visit because it's on a tour is quite frankly ridiculous and says more about your own personal choice and method of vacation. Giano    (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Giano here; "one of the world's best known museums" is a straightforward statement of fact, and demanding a source for it is like demanding a source for the sky being blue (although the sources exist—you can rustle up a dozen "the world's ten most important museums" lists in five seconds by googling and the Hermitage will be included on all of them). The only reasons it's not in the top ten museums by visitor numbers (it currently ranks 11) are the distorting effect of London's free museums, in which anyone hiking the Thames Path who pops into Tate Modern for a pee or who nips into the National Gallery to buy a present for Auntie Beryl at the gift shop is counted as a "visitor", and the Chinese practice oftreating the Forbidden City as a single museum for counting purposes and thus counting every tourist in Beijing as a "visitor to the Palace Museum on multiple occasions". NPOV doesn't mean we can't state opinions when every single authority in the world shares that opinion; even the most die-hard Russophobe would concede that the Hermitage is one of the world's most important and famous museums. &#8209; Iridescent 16:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Giano here; "one of the world's best known museums" is a straightforward statement of fact, and demanding a source for it is like demanding a source for the sky being blue (although the sources exist—you can rustle up a dozen "the world's ten most important museums" lists in five seconds by googling and the Hermitage will be included on all of them). The only reasons it's not in the top ten museums by visitor numbers (it currently ranks 11) are the distorting effect of London's free museums, in which anyone hiking the Thames Path who pops into Tate Modern for a pee or who nips into the National Gallery to buy a present for Auntie Beryl at the gift shop is counted as a "visitor", and the Chinese practice oftreating the Forbidden City as a single museum for counting purposes and thus counting every tourist in Beijing as a "visitor to the Palace Museum on multiple occasions". NPOV doesn't mean we can't state opinions when every single authority in the world shares that opinion; even the most die-hard Russophobe would concede that the Hermitage is one of the world's most important and famous museums. &#8209; Iridescent 16:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Winter Palace (crop).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 24, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-01-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)