Jump to content

Talk:Hermitage Museum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


English-language name of the museum

[edit]

In the official website of the museum, it refers 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)[reply]

I agree that in the museum's official website, the museum is named formally in English as "The State Hermitage Museum", so I believe that the name in the lead sentence and infobox should be consistent with the full name in the official website. -- Blairall (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of why I deleted 3 words from this article

[edit]

"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)[reply]

I'm very unimpressed. This is immature.

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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.
    Indeed. I see nothing wrong here. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    This change is OK with me. I don't believe there is so much Faberge jewelry in the Hermitage. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I think we should be more specific than "somewhat less irreplacable". That can easily be fixed. --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "Precious" carries different connotations than "expensive". We should avoid calling them "precious". --Berserk798 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    It's not my phrase. There are many enthusiasts of the movie who I'm pretty sure will restore it. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if they restore it, I have no problem removing it.

(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)[reply]

Hermitage Museum buildings

[edit]

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)[reply]

I think Berserk should give other people a chance to comment on The Hermitage. His monopoly of this topic is egotistical and shamelessly arrogant.74.220.72.210 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theft from the Hermitage

[edit]

BBC News article from July 2006 86.136.0.145 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment after visiting the Hermitage museum on 2 Sept 2007

[edit]

Big thank you to the writers of this concise but comprehensive article on the State Hermitage Museum. It inspired me to visit this wonderful museum and I was not disappointed. "Superb" and "brethtaking" are too mild to describe its interiors and collections. Would appreciate constructive additions to this article both pictures and information. 84.52.77.203 11:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Pekka Kuovola, Finland[reply]

Comments to who typed this article of this page

[edit]

Why have not all previous owners to this Palace been listed, and then specially not the last one?? There are families missing!! Kindly do not forget that this "Museum" has been taken from the rightful owner at gun point by the Bolscheviks in 1917, and then after that never returned to the last owner family. Whomever dealing with stolen property - I think there is a name for that in most languages, not to mention moral aspects. H. von Börtzell-Szuch Stockholm, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.195.150 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the names of all the previous occupants of the Winter Palace, then by all means feel free to edit the article. Or if you are not comfortable editing yourself, post the info in here, along with sources preferably. Then other editors can check the sources and edit the new information into the article. sdgjake (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ?

[edit]

I am thinking of considerably expanding the Winter Palace page but before I do has there been any discussion of merge between this and that page. I'm not bothered either way but obviously I don't want to get this to FA level and then have a merge tag stuck on it. Giano (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some other articles on Wiki for comparison, and found that we only have one article for Museo del Prado, but for Louvre we also have Palais du Louvre. I think the latter makes more sense here. The Winter Palace has more history before becoming the Hermitage than since. The Hermitage doesn't just occupy the Winter Palace. There's a lot of overlap, but it's not complete, and so a merge doesn't seem quite right to me. I think best would be to have the "Main article: Winter Palace" and vice-versa on the articles. Plus it's hard for me to imagine having Winter Palace or Hermitage Museum be a redirect. Or at least that's my initial reaction. Is that what you were thinking as well? --JayHenry (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One is a museum, the other is a palace- two fundamentally different things. And what if they moved the whole museum to Vegas? :-) That would be a messy unmerge. There should be plenty of material for two complete FAs. BTW, I'm not entirely joking about the Vegas part - the "museum" article should be written such that it wouldn't change much if the collection moved to new digs, while the Winter Palace article gets the bulk of material about the physical plant. Stan (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Nazis targeting Hermitage specifically?

[edit]

The article states this as fact, but I think it needs a citation. Also, perhaps it needs to be clarified, if it was the case, whether it was targeted as a cultural repository or merely as a large building in an area where they wanted to shell. Historian932 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danae.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Danae.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitage cats

[edit]

Just thought this would be interesting, the BBC had an article on Hermitage's cats in 2007: Hermitage palace is cat's whiskers. I have also seen a French documentary which name translated as "Cats in Tzar's country." Those cats are part of the palace since the 18th Century. Perhaps this is worth adding to the article? -- DTRY (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called "The Hermitage"

[edit]

I've always thought the word had something to do with hermits but a building built for a thousand people is obviously not that.

What is the origin of the word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrara, Italy

[edit]

The link to Ermitage Ferrara in Italy doesn't work, the site of the castle is not mentioning it either. it seems that Ermitage Ferrara is old news and should be removedOogstweg (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the Director in 2016?

[edit]

Mikhael (Borisovitch) Piotrovsky is named in the introductory paragraphs but this disagrees with the 'List of Directors' which comes later!!! Joking99a (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had vandalized the 'List of Directors', so I have fixed that now. According to the official museum website here, Mikhail Piotrovski's father, Boris Piotrovski, was Director of The State Hermitage Museum from 1964 until his death in 1990. Following his father’s death, Mikhail was invited, in 1991, to join the Hermitage staff as the First Deputy Director. In July 1992, he was appointed Director of the Museum by a decree of the Prime Minister. -- Blairall (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hermitage 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hermitage 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with exhibition size

[edit]

The official webpage of Hermitage has suddenly changed its exhbition size from 66,842 to 100,000 square meters. I wonder what could motivate such a big change, as well as the passage from a very precise number to this over the top figure. I suspect that it could be State propaganda to be able to steal the first place from the Louvre... https://hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/about/facts_and_figures/?lng=en LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermitage_Museum&oldid=1194489963"