Talk:Hermitage Museum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Russia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
In the official website of the museum, it referrs to itself as The State Hermitage Museum. I suppose the page shouldn't be moved as the shorter form seems to be more widely used, but probably the full name should be mentioned (as of now, State Hermitage Museum is a redirect). --Jūzeris | say what? | 08:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] An explanation of why I deleted 3 words from this article
"What is worse" makes a judgement. It is not wikipedia's job to make judgements of good/bad, beeter/worse. It is wikipedia's job only to present the facts.-86.138.233.25 18:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm very unimpressed. This is immature.
- The article states that the Hermitage Museum is the "most important" museum of human history and culture in the world. I removed that statement in accordance to Wikipedia's style guide, because it's not a verifiable fact but merely someone's opinion, and that it gives no actual information about the museum.
- Not at all. It says "one of the most important". While I don't believe that the phrase is mine, yet the statement is factually correct. If you remove it, I would not revert: the fact is obvious enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. The article has enough information to make it clear that it is one of the most important museums of human culture and history. Flat-out saying so detracts from the article so I would like to remove it. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all. It says "one of the most important". While I don't believe that the phrase is mine, yet the statement is factually correct. If you remove it, I would not revert: the fact is obvious enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I changed "Leonardo" to "Leonardo da Vinci" because many people will not correctly identify the name Leonardo as being Leonardo da Vinci.
- While I can imagine the hamburger-chewing public you take so much care about, it's not very likely that they are able to read anything more advanced than cartoons. If you think the problem is real, make your changes. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very nice. I like your ethnic slur. I am not ashamed to be a part of this "hamburger-chewing" public that you speak of. Hamburgers are merely a part of our culture and they make our society no less intelligent or culturally significant than yours. I'd also like to point out that the United States has a very high literacy rate and that identifying the name "Leonardo" as being specifically "Leonardo da Vinci" has nothing to do with your reading ability. I, for the record, can't remember ever seeing his name abbreviated to "Leonardo" without it being explicitly clear that the article (or whatever it is) is talking about Leonardo da Vinci. I've seen it abbreviated to "da Vinci", but generally his full name is written out. I would like to change this. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I hesitate to get involved, but I'd just wanted to point out that you're not making the hamburger-chewers look very good here. "da Vinci" is not a surname and should not be treated as one; all it means is that Leonardo came from a town called Vinci. As far as anyone knows his name was simply "Leonardo"; one adds "da Vinci" if there are other Leonardos from whom he needs to be distinguished. To call him "da Vinci" alone is simply nonsensical. But in the context of the arts and sciences, there's only one Leonardo anyway. (For the record, I'm American, but I rarely eat hamburgers. They may not make us dumb, but they do make us fat.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- His full name is "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci" and in English-speaking countries he is often colloquially referred to as "Leonardo da Vinci" or simply "da Vinci". Unless it's explicity clear that the text is referring to Leonardo da Vinci, I've never seen "Leonardo" stand alone. Also, hamburgers don't make people fat; poor eating and exercise habits do. --Berserk798 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of his full name, thanks. "Di ser Piero" is a patronymic, and not a surname either, and using "da Vinci" as a surname is simply illiterate no matter how often you've seen it. But "Leonardo" by itself is actually fairly common in serious work about him. You won't find him called "da Vinci" in biographies or art histories, for example.
- No, hamburgers by themselves don't make people fat, but they're symptomatic of a fat lifestyle. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I never claimed that "Di ser Piero" was a surname, but thanks for completely inventing that. You're failing to realize that just because "da Vinci" isn't technically a surname it is still a name. Now if the article was discussing Renaissance or Italian art, or if it had previously used the name "Leonardo da Vinci" or specified that he was the man being discussed, I would expect him to be referred to as simply "Leonardo". When you throw the name "Leonardo" in the middle of a long list of artists from different time periods and countries, I think it's more sensible to specify who exactly Leonardo is. I'd also like to point out that names like "da Vinci" have evolved into surnames over time, as have patronymics like "Robertson" and "Atkinson". And any meat could just as easily be symptomatic of a "fat" lifestyle. There's nothing special about hamburgers. --Berserk798 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very nice. I like your ethnic slur. I am not ashamed to be a part of this "hamburger-chewing" public that you speak of. Hamburgers are merely a part of our culture and they make our society no less intelligent or culturally significant than yours. I'd also like to point out that the United States has a very high literacy rate and that identifying the name "Leonardo" as being specifically "Leonardo da Vinci" has nothing to do with your reading ability. I, for the record, can't remember ever seeing his name abbreviated to "Leonardo" without it being explicitly clear that the article (or whatever it is) is talking about Leonardo da Vinci. I've seen it abbreviated to "da Vinci", but generally his full name is written out. I would like to change this. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- While I can imagine the hamburger-chewing public you take so much care about, it's not very likely that they are able to read anything more advanced than cartoons. If you think the problem is real, make your changes. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I changed "but there is actually much more to see" to "there are several more collections, however, including" because the former sounds too informal for Wikipedia, in my mind. This is, however, very debatable.
- I removed the "superb" description of the Faberge jewellery in accordance to Wikipedia's style guide, the POV factor, and because it gives no information about the collection. If you want people to realize how superb it is, tell them facts that show what makes it superb.
- I removed the "breathtaking" description of the ancient gold collection for the same reasons as the "superb" description.
- I have objections here. Perhaps we should state clearly that the Hermitage contains by far the largest part of the steppe (Scythian, Sarmatian, Bosporian) gold produced before Christ\s era? --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Now we can tell people why it's "breathtaking" and remove the peacock phrase. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have objections here. Perhaps we should state clearly that the Hermitage contains by far the largest part of the steppe (Scythian, Sarmatian, Bosporian) gold produced before Christ\s era? --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the statement that describes the German architect as "stylish". This is, obviously, for similar reasons as the two previous edits.
- Please read carefully: Klenze was not stylish but fashionable. Only those who have no idea about 19th-century architecture may dispute the fact. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to say something along the lines of how he was popular or his designs were "in vogue" at the time. I don't think Wikipedia should be taking a stance on what is or is not fashionable. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please read carefully: Klenze was not stylish but fashionable. Only those who have no idea about 19th-century architecture may dispute the fact. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I removed "its quality is still unsurpassed". Please, don't even argue with this one. The same reasons as "superb" and "breathtaking".
- The epithet is surely judgmental, yet it is basically correct. In terms of quantity, the Hermitage's collection is now the second best; yet the fame, size, diversity of subject matter, importance for the history of painting - in one word, quality - of Rembrandt paintings represented here have no rivals elsewhere. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I still feel that that phrase should be removed. If you want to give information about the collection, that would be good, but I don't think we should make the generalization of "quality". --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The epithet is surely judgmental, yet it is basically correct. In terms of quantity, the Hermitage's collection is now the second best; yet the fame, size, diversity of subject matter, importance for the history of painting - in one word, quality - of Rembrandt paintings represented here have no rivals elsewhere. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think "notable" is more neutral than "remarkable", but this is debatable.
- I don't see it at all.
- "Several" means the same exact thing as "a lot" except it sounds more encyclopedic and is less informal. Why do you even have an issue with this?
- Because Schukin bought up the whole Picasso's studio circa 1909. Every large or otherwise eminent painting from the period went to his collection, which was later divided between the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum. Those early Cubist paintings by Picasso that may be seen in the West were sold abroad by the Communists. Even in the present state, the Hermitage's collection of 40 major works by Picasso may by no means reduced to "several paintings". --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well if several isn't accurate, neither is "a lot". Let's be exact and say "40 major works". --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because Schukin bought up the whole Picasso's studio circa 1909. Every large or otherwise eminent painting from the period went to his collection, which was later divided between the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum. Those early Cubist paintings by Picasso that may be seen in the West were sold abroad by the Communists. Even in the present state, the Hermitage's collection of 40 major works by Picasso may by no means reduced to "several paintings". --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Describing some paintings as "somewhat less irreplacable" than others is fallacious and POV. Similar reasons as the "superb" and "breathtaking" edits, but I hope I don't need to go into detail about them.
- Please do. There are less than dozen Van Eyck's in the world, each long appropriated by a major museum, so the loss of every one is irreplacable. There are no (and never will be) other Van Eycks on the market to buy and to fill the gap in the collection. On the other hand, there are thousands of Renoirs or Monets in the market, so there is hope that a new painting by one of this paintings will be acquired, hence the loss is retrievable. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should be more specific than "somewhat less irreplacable". That can easily be fixed. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please do. There are less than dozen Van Eyck's in the world, each long appropriated by a major museum, so the loss of every one is irreplacable. There are no (and never will be) other Van Eycks on the market to buy and to fill the gap in the collection. On the other hand, there are thousands of Renoirs or Monets in the market, so there is hope that a new painting by one of this paintings will be acquired, hence the loss is retrievable. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The period was only "tragic" in the eyes of some people. Obviously the Soviets didn't think it was too tragic; obviously the people abroad who bought the paintings didn't think it was tragic at all. This is purely, wholly, undebatably POV.
- The article is about a particular museum. For the museum officials the loss is tragic, and they say it openly in every publication you can consult. What others think about the matter is of little consequence to this article. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- This right here is rubbing me the wrong way. Wikipedia's articles are supposed to be from no one's point of view and only factual. I understand where you're coming from, but I think we have to remove "tragic" anyway because we can't be entertaining the museum official's point of view no matter how consequential it is to the topic. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article is about a particular museum. For the museum officials the loss is tragic, and they say it openly in every publication you can consult. What others think about the matter is of little consequence to this article. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Saying that the impressionist works were "by far the most precious" is POV for obvious reasons as well.
- Please consult auction records. The paintings are sold and bought, and every artwork has a price. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Precious" carries different connotations than "expensive". We should avoid calling them "precious". --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please consult auction records. The paintings are sold and bought, and every artwork has a price. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not given the right to judge whether or not works of art are "incredible". I don't think we should be describing this movie as such.
(I'm sorry I'm taking up so much room on your talkpage. I don't mind if you delete this after we're through discussing it.) --Berserk798 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hermitage Museum buildings
Perhaps it would be better if this article describes which are the six buildings that forms the Hermitage Museum. It is also helpful if a template was created that would includes all the buildings (Winter Palace, Hermitage Theatre...) of the Hermitage Museum. --67.2.149.14 08:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Theft from the Hermitage
BBC News article from July 2006 86.136.0.145 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Are there any sources or references for any of the information in this article? None are listed. Maybe we should add the {{unreferenced}} template... Sewebster 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
