Talk:List of most-visited museums/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Natural History Museum, London

Interested as to why the Natural History Museum, London doesn't make the list. 2015 figure was 5,284,023, although their annual review for 2016/17 says 4.6million (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/content/dam/nhmwww/about-us/annual-reviews/annual-review-2016-17.pdf). In either case the museum should make the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.93.137 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand National Museum

I'll be glad to add the New Zealand National Museum to the list, but I would like to have reliable source for a citation other than just the annual report of the Museum if possible. Is there an article in a local newspaper or magazine or a press release that gives the figure? Also, is this figure for the year 2016? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added a source for this that I hope works for you. Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Intentional omissions?

I've gone through the Art Newspaper Review list and noted the following omissions from our list: Somerset House (#11), Moscow Kremlin Museums (#21), Royal Academy of Arts (#42), Serpentine Galleries (#49), National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (#50), Österreichische Galerie Belvedere (#54), Whitney Museum of American Art (#56), Museo Universitario Arte Contemporáneo (#61), National Art Museum of China (#62), and the Berardo Collection Museum (#65). Were any of these omissions deliberate? If they were not I will add them all back in. Cobblet (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the list too long?

There are now 117 entries on the list, which is still likely to be very much incomplete (see for example the omissions noted above). Should we raise the number of visitors needed to make it on to the list? As an example, changing it to two million would currently give us 54 entries. Cobblet (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your additions to this; this is truly a monumental project. There was no reason I know of to omit the museums above, and, as you say, there are probably more that could be included.

Yes, I think the list is probably too long; we could either raise the ceiling to two million, or, what do you think of limiting it to the top fifty? Or even the top twenty-five? That would make the task of maintaining it a lot simpler. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the argument against limiting it to the top x number of museums is that it implies that the list is complete and we actually know what the top x museums are. Which we probably shouldn't be claiming at this point, given that we don't even have clear criteria for what a museum is. (That's also a good reason to keep the list unranked.) I'm more comfortable with limiting entries to two million visitors. Cobblet (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
That works for me. Two million visitors it shall be. Should we do the same for the list of most visited art museums as well? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it might be reasonable to pick a lower limit for that list (although 650,000 is a weird choice: the last entry on the current Art Newspaper list is just above 750,000) since otherwise it would be essentially redundant to this one. In any case I don't intend to work on that list anytime soon. I have a hard enough time figuring out what a "museum" is (my inclination at this point is simply to include any institution that's identified as a museum by a relevant industry association or government agency, which will include the Forbidden City, Versailles, Hagia Sophia, etc.) that I'm going to leave the problem of distinguishing art museums from non-art museums for another time. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments on latest changes

We're now at 63 entries. I have deliberately avoided adding site museums associated with historic buildings or archaeological excavations (e.g. Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, Taj Mahal) or museum complexes (e.g. Red Fort, Museum Island) unless there's a secondary source that treats them as museums in their own right. See for instance Britannica's article on the Palace Museum within the Forbidden City; or the French Ministry of Culture's report on museum attendance statistics, in which Versailles is specifically named as a museum (rather than a national monument) throughout the first section (e.g. on p. 14.) Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the definition of "museum" has gotten much too broad, and several of the places now listed are not museums, but historical sites. I thought we had settled after long discussion that the Palace Museum was not a museum, but a large historical site. The Palace of Versailles is not listed anywhere I've seen as a museum. The Kremlin, which you mentioned, is not a museum, though there is a museum within the Kremlin. By this standard, Vatican City could be considered a museum, but of course it's not. Hagia Sofia in Istanbul is not a museum, but an historic site. The Mevlana Museum, now listed here, appears to be a mausoleum rather than a museum, though it has a small collection of objects. I respectfully think we need to stick to museums as defined by museum associations and museum publications. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I also question the inclusion of the Museum of French History at Versailles. This is one rather minor section of the Chateau of Versailles, started by Louis Philippe back in the 1840s; the great majority of people who go to Versailles go to see the Chateau, not the museum. Not sure why it's here. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Vatican Museums appear on both the TEA/AECOM list and the Art Newspaper Review list. The Kremlin Museums appear on the Art Newspaper Review list.
  • Versailles appears on the European Group of Museum Statistics (EGMUS) list referenced in the article. The EGMUS data is also published by Eurostat in its 2016 publication on 2016 Culture statistics: Versailles appears on p. 39. And as I've already alluded to, the French Ministry of Culture explicitly names Versailles as one of the seven "museums" (along with the Louvre, Orsay, Centre Pompidou, etc.) that have "traditionally" comprised the category of French museums with over a million visitors: see p. 14 of its 2012–2014 report on museum attendance statistics.
  • Hagia Sophia is not on the list since it had only 1.9 million visitors in 2016. It, Mevlana and Topkapi are all explicitly named as museums on the list provided by the Turkish Ministry of Tourism and Culture. It defines a museum as "Places where the works of art, history, nature and other curiosities are preserved and exhibited." The significance of the Mevlana collection should not be underestimated – the mausoleum forms only one part of the site. See for instance c:Category:Mevlana Museum, especially c:Category:Mevlana museum - Collections.
  • I don't see any principled reason to exclude from the list historic buildings, such as palaces, that exhibit curated collections. Nobody disputes that the Hermitage is a museum even though one of its buildings is the Winter Palace. I don't think our personal opinions on why "most people" go to Versailles or the Forbidden City should be given greater weight than what multiple secondary sources have to say about the nature of these institutions. I've currently excluded from the list palaces such as Schönbrunn Palace that don't fit the ICOM definition below.
  • The TEA/AECOM and Art Newspaper lists, which are the main sources for older versions of the list and remain so here, don't actually define what they consider to be a museum. I believe every site on the current list meets the current ICOM definition of a museum: "A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment."
This is by no means an unusually broad definition. For example, the EGMUS definition of a museum includes not only the ICOM definition but also two site categories "recognised by ICOM as having the character of museums", namely "Conservation institutes and exhibition galleries on libraries and archives centres" and "Natural, archaeological and ethnographic monuments and sites and historical monuments and sites of a museum nature, owing to their acquisition, conservation and communication activities." It even says that these definitions should be interpreted "in a broad sense." It's because of the breadth of this definition that I've excluded several sites listed by EGMUS, namely Schönbrunn, Pompeii, and the archaeological museum on Palatine Hill.
ICOM has actually created a standing committee in charge of revising its definition to make it even broader. I suggest reading this to understand why ICOM feels this is necessary. Cobblet (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


I appreciate all your research and work on this, but see some inconsistencies here. Why would your list exclude Schonbrunn, Pompeii, the Taj Mahal and the Palatine Hill but would include the Forbidden City and Hagia Sofia? By this definition, you also need to include Colonial Williamsburg, the White House, Notre Dame Cathedral, the Palace of Jaipur, Buckingham Palace, Yosemite National Park, and virtually all other popular historic sites which meet the criteria, if they have enough visitors. I suggest we need a more narrow definition, and of course it needs citations. Is there another source besides the China News Agency that considers the Forbidden City the most visited museum in the world? I'm waiting to see the TEA/AECOM list for 2017. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I welcome secondary sources indicating that the sites you've named are (a) museums that (b) attract over two million visitors a year. For what it's worth, ICOM recommends the Museums of the World directory published by De Gruyter as a reference list of museums (subscription required for full access but anyone can search its entries – use the search bar on the left). That source contains all the sites you've mentioned except for Yosemite, although it lists the Yosemite Museum. So I'll address each of them, except for the Hagia Sophia which I've already discussed previously:
  • Colonial Williamsburg: Far fewer than two million visitors.
  • White House: Fewer than 500,000 "recreation visits" in 2017 according to the National Parks Service.
  • Notre Dame: Called a monument, not a museum, by the French Ministry of Culture in the same report that called Versailles a museum – see pp. 36 and 40.
  • Jaipur City Palace: I can't find attendance statistics for it. Rajasthan Tourism's annual progress report might have it but unfortunately I don't read Hindi. Amer Fort, Jantar Mantar and Hawa Mahal are listed as monuments rather than museums by the Rajasthan Department of Archaeology and Museums, and do not appear in Museums of the World. Amer Fort, the most visited of these, had nearly two million visitors last year.
  • Buckingham Palace: Neither Buckingham Palace nor any other UK Royal Estate site received more than two million visitors in 2016/17.
  • Yosemite Museum: I can't find separate statistics for Yosemite Museum as opposed to the park. In any case it is unlikely to attract more than two million visitors, based on a 2009 survey in which only 24% of Yosemite tourists reported visiting a museum, and the park doesn't get anywhere close to eight million visitors.
  • Palace Museum: I've already noted various sources that recognize the Palace Museum as a museum. For sources specifically asserting that it's the world's most visited museum (or among the most visited), see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
  • Schönbrunn: Nowhere on its official website is Schönbrunn described as a museum as opposed to a palace. (Compare Versailles.) The Austrian Museum Association's compilation of museum statistics in 2014 notably omits Schönbrunn in the central infographic featuring Austria's most visited museums. On p. 18 of Vienna in figures 2015 Schönbrunn is not listed under any of the three museum categories but rather under "Related facilities operated by various institutions" which includes everything from St. Stephen's Cathedral to the Schönbrunn Zoo. The page about the corporation managing Schönbrunn doesn't say that it's a nonprofit, which is required by the ICOM definition.
  • Taj Mahal: The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) runs a site museum (here's another source). The one government-published statistical source I've found – see pp. 113 and 115 – refers to the Taj Mahal only as an ASI monument, not a museum. The Uttar Pradesh Directorate of Archaeology does not call it a museum, referring to it only as a protected site or monument. In its annual report, the Indian Ministry of Culture also distinguishes ASI-managed monuments and their site museums (Chapter 2.1) from other museums not under ASI control (Chapter 2.2). The Taj Museum is neither a member of the Museums Association of India nor a participant in the National Portal and Digital Repository for Indian Museums. So despite the presence of a site museum, I'm reluctant to add attendance statistics for the entire complex to the list, given the lack of other authoritative sources referring to the whole site as a museum; but I'm open to changing my mind if you can find me other sources. Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Palatine Museum and Pompeii: See p. 11 of this report by Istat where these sites are explicitly singled out as archaeological areas as opposed to monuments or museums. Also, I cannot find attendance statistics for the Palatine Museum specifically as opposed to the "archaeological circuit" comprising the Colosseum and Roman Forum as well.
That's my analysis of the sources. If consistency remains a concern, I have no problem with using inclusion in the De Gruyter directory as the single basis for inclusion on this list. Obviously that will further broaden the scope of the list, not narrow it. But as I've noted previously, the trend in modern museology is to move towards a more inclusive definition of a museum. Cobblet (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

National Palace Museum, Taipei

The source document separately lists the attendance figures for the main museum in Taipei and the southern branch 259 km away. It did so both in 2017 (as quoted in the list) and in 2016, when the main museum reported 4,665,725 visitors. This corresponds to the 2016 figures given for the museum by both the TEA/AECOM (see pp. 19 and 71) and Art Newspaper Review (see p. 3) lists, which we've relied on for many of the other figures. Thus I have also reported the 2017 attendance of the main museum only, giving the attendance of the southern branch in the notes. Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


Please add a definition

I appreciate your great amount of work on this, and your many additions. I would ask you to make another addition. I note that you've added many different kinds of non-traditional museums; palaces, an arts center which contains a museum among its other attractions (Sommerset House); historical monuments; memorial museums, and a museum which has no collections at all, but serves as a venue for exhibits by outside groups (The National Arts Center in Tokyo). But I see that you haven't given a definition in the lead of what is included in this list. All it says is the names of the three lists that you consulted. What is the definition used here for a museum? The criteria here seem to be very broad, far beyond what was used before. Without a more specific definition, any other user can add any institutions he or she wishes. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem – I wanted to return to this after we had some discussion about it. Here's what I propose for a rewritten lead:

According to the International Council of Museums (ICOM), a museum is "a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment."[8] Museums play an essential role in the protection and transmission of the world's cultural and natural heritage, and are powerful drivers of sustainable tourism.[9][10][11]
Institutions whose most recently reported attendance exceeds two million visitors per year are listed here if they meet the ICOM definition and are widely identified as museums in secondary sources, including relevant government agencies or industry associations. Sources used to compile the list include the Museum Index published by the Themed Entertainment Association (TEA) and the economics practice at AECOM; the annual Art Newspaper Review feature on art museum visitor figures; the European Group on Museum Statistics (EGMUS); and the annual survey of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) in the United Kingdom, among others.

Let me know what you think. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Further comment on lead paragraph

It's awfully broad and general, but I guess it works, I would leave out the sentence ""Museums play an essential role..." since it doesn't add anything to the definition, it's just fluff. I note that some of the lists cited as sources, notably the British list, don't call themselves lists of museums, but of "visitor attractions" but I wouldn't use that. We could consider calling it "Most visited Museums and Cultural Sites".

To be more clear about what's in the list, I would suggest you add: "It includes not only traditional museums, but also historic monuments and sites, including former palaces."

I question whether the Art Center in Tokyo is really a museum; its described here an "exhibition space", without any collection or gallery staff. It doesn't acquire, conserve, or research, it just exhibits. I also question whether Somerset House meets this definition of a museum, since very little of the space is used for any kind of exhibits. it's an arts center.
I also wonder why Schonbrunn Palace isn't on the list. It has all the same attributes as the Palace of Versailles (restored rooms and furnishings and some art) and it gets more than enough visitors.
Cathedrals are trickier. Notre Dame is the most visited site in Paris, and it's owned by the French state, but operated by the Catholic Church. but it's first and foremost a church, not a museum. Same with all of the other European Cathedrals, including San Marco in Venice, Westminister Abbey and Cologne in Germany, and St. Peter's in Rome. I would leave all working cathedrals and churches off the list.


I hope this is helpful. Keep up the good work. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The sentence about the role of museums in tourism is there to establish context and explain why the topic of "most visited museums" is notable per WP:LEAD. I prefer not to further qualify the definition if we can help it because introducing terms like "cultural sites" or "historic monuments" without defining them risks creating further ambiguity – these are even more amorphous concepts than museums. The bottom line is that the list includes all institutions that are identified by reliable and relevant secondary sources as museums. This approach is in keeping with our policies on verifiability and a neutral point of view.
The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions does in fact divide its members into "Gardens & Leisure", "Heritage & Cathedrals" and "Museums and Galleries"; all the British entries on our list, including Somerset House, fall into the last category. Somerset House is also on the Art Newspaper list of art museums. The National Art Center Tokyo is on both the Art Newspaper and the TEA/AECOM lists and is identified by the Tokyo Statistical Yearbook 2015 as a national museum. Schönbrunn, like Versailles, is on neither the Art Newspaper nor the TEA/AECOM list; but unlike Versailles, it is also not listed as a museum by the relevant national cultural agency or local tourism board, and does not even describe itself as a museum, as I've explained previously. I've also discussed Notre-Dame previously. Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Imbalance of the list

I'm a bit concerned about the current balance of the list in its new form. It has several museums which seem questionable to me: The Lozienki Park Museum in Poland, for example, is described in its article as a park, not a museum. It doesn't seem to have any features that would qualify it as a museum. The new Tapei City Gold Museum is a museum of the gold industry, and nothing else. The Fujian Museum is a provincial Chinese museum with a high number of visitors, but no other distinction mentioned in the article.

On the other hand, several important museums have been cut out of the article, to make room for the new ones. Museums no longer in the list include, among others:

The Guggenheim Museum,
the Los Angeles County Art Museum,
the Galleria dell'Accademia, in Florence
The Art Institute of Chicago, the top museum of Chicago
the Pushkin Museum, the major art Museum in Moscow
The Art Museums of San Francisco
We might want to consider lowering the threshold number of visitors, reconsider the criteria of what defines a museum for this list. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is the official description of the Royal Łazienki Museum, which Statistics Poland also lists among the most visited Polish museums in 2016 – see p. 132. If this list has revealed deficiencies in Wikipedia's coverage of notable museums, so much the better. I am open to alternative criteria for defining museums if they are supported by sources and compatible with a neutral point of view. Under the current criteria, I expect the list to contain over 200 museums if the attendance threshold is lowered to a million. Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that the current definition is so broad. The Victoria Memorial, for example, is certainly an historical monument because of its size, but it has only two galleries of photographs. The Art Center in Tokyo is an exhibition center with no collection at all. I think any list that excludes the museums mentioned above isn't satisfactory, and wouldn't be taken very seriously. I'd rather have a long list than a list which leaves out many of the best-known and most respected museums in the world. I'd go for 1.5 million but that leaves out a number of important museums. A million is better. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
What you said about the Victoria Memorial isn't true. The 2001 iteration of the ICOM definition of a museum included "non-profit art exhibition galleries," and I've already mentioned that several authoritative secondary sources identify the National Art Center as a museum. I don't see why the list wouldn't be taken seriously when each and every one of these museums is known and presumably respected by two million people. Cobblet (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My objection is not so much what is included in the list (though I have some questions about some of these; I've been to the Victoria Memorial) but what is left out; namely many of the major art museums of Europe and the United States. If we can't narrow the definition, then I propose that we put the threshold for inclusion at one million visitors and expand the list. As far as art museums, it's easy to do; we have the names and figures already. I'm ready to start putting those in right away. After that it's just a matter of annually updating the figures. What do you think? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm prepared to maintain the list in its current form on an annual basis. But I'm not prepared to lower the threshold to a million visitors since I expect such a list to be three times as long. It’s already at 73 museums. Judging from the amount of time I've already put in; and fully aware that the data gets more difficult to find the less visited the museums are; and also that the line between museums and non-museums gets increasingly hard to draw the more institutions we have to consider; and not seeing what concrete benefit all this work would accomplish; I'm unwilling to extend the list. Don't we already have another list with all the "major art museums of Europe and the United States" you wanted to see? Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. In the spirit of Wikipedia, let me suggest a compromise. Instead of one million, let's make the threshold number 1.5 million. That will bring most of the major U.S. and European museums that were cut from the list, and the overall number will be manageable. The number of additional museums in this category from the AECOM survey is quite small, and the data is all available. I'm prepared to add those, and, as I've been doing in the past, keeping the numbers updated when new surveys come out. Does that work for you? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, a 1.5 million threshold would include LACMA and the Art Institute of Chicago but not the other institutions you listed above, at least according to 2016 figures. And are you comfortable with including museums that have collections of live specimens as a major component, like the Jardin des plantes and Museum of Science? Both were among the cuts. Cobblet (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The museums I would like to restore to the list are:
The Art Institute of Chicago
The National Portrait Gallery, London
The Pushkin Museum in Moscow; the major museum of western art in Russia.
The LA County Art Museum
The J. Paul Getty Museum

I'd also like to put back:

Accademis in Florence (home of Michalangelos 'David', among other things)
The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco -

though these last two. according to the Art News survey, are just below the cutoff, at 1.4 million.

These are all world-class museums, listed in the Art News survey. The numbers and perhaps rank will need to be updated when the new figures come out; I can take care of that.

Personally I wouldn't include botanical gardens. That's an entirely separate category, and if included would make the list a lot, lot longer. In most cities I've been to they don't charge admission, so the numbers would be gross estimates. I would include major science museums, if they're on the AECOM list.

Hope this is helpful. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

But the Portrait Gallery's 2017 attendance was 1,271,920 according to ALVA and the Pushkin's was 1,133,200 in 2016 according to the Art Newspaper. With the 1.5 million threshold I estimate our list to have about 150 entries; in comparison, the Art Newspaper list is only 100 entries long. It was less than a week ago that you agreed a list of 100+ entries might be too long, and I'm frankly confused by how this no longer seems to concern you at all. You're essentially asking me to add 70+ entries to the list just so you can add three of your own. Why don't we wait until this year's versions of the Art Newspaper and TEA/AECOM lists come out, likely in May and June, before we make a decision on the threshold? That'll save us from updating the figures twice, give us more time to think about what an appropriate length for the list should be, and for other editors to chime in. (Speaking of estimates, all the Smithsonian museums are free and most of their figures are also rough estimates.) Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I regret that I said the list was too long, I see now it was a mistake. I didn't realize that the list would have a great many additions of institutions that are not on the Art Newspaper or TEA list, and that major US and European museums would be dropped from the list to make room for them. Since the vast majority of the English Wikipedia readers are in the U.S. and Europe, I think the list should include the major US and European museums. Since you've broadened the criteria for inclusion, the list of course will have to be longer.
Can you explain why you think 70 new entries are necessary? Where are they coming from? are these museums that are on the TEA.com or Art News list?
Why do you want to include botanical gardens, if you think the list is already too long?
The Smithsonian numbers are not "rough estimates". They click each visitor when the arrive, and publish the counts regularly. Check the site of the Smithsonian newsroom, and you'll see the figures for each site up to this month.
I'll hold off on putting back the Portrait Gallery and the Pushkin, but I don't see any reason to wait to put back the LA County, Getty, San Frnacisco, Accademia, and Art Institute of Chicago. I can take care of that.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What I want is a list that complies with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The list of most visited museums should include the most visited museums, regardless of where they're located, the interests of our editors, or assumptions we editors make about the interests of our readers. If we say that the threshold for inclusion is 1.5 million visitors (which by the way excludes the San Francisco museums and the Accademia) then we should make an honest attempt to find all museums that meet that criteria. My reading of government statistics and news reports around the world suggests that there are many, many museums neglected by the TEA–AECOM list.
What I also want is a list that reflects what sources say about institutions being museums or not. It's not that I want botanical gardens to be included; what I want to know is whether secondary sources actually treat institutions like the Jardin des plantes and Museum of Science as museums. (Edit: ISO 18461 says "zoos, aquaria, arboreta and botanic gardens are included" in the museum definition "but should be reported separately." It seems like a reasonable guideline to follow, and I think it would exclude both institutions from our list. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC))
There are several ways in which you can pursue your interest in European and US museums that are in keeping with NPOV. You could create List of most visited museums in the United States and List of most visited museums in Europe. You could even create TEA–AECOM Museum Index if you think that particular point of view is notable on its own. But if you're dead set on altering the threshold for this list and not interested in doing the research necessary to expand it in a neutral fashion, at least give me the time to do that. I'm busy through most of April but should be able to return by month's end with a better idea as to how many museums we'll really need to add. Cobblet (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The San Francisco Maritime Park

I see that you've added the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park to the list. There is a Museum in the park, but the museum rather small, it's located in the former bath house. The attendance figure is for the park, not the museum. Are you planning to add all of the Historical Parks to the list? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've only added the two Historical Parks that are accredited as museums by the American Alliance of Museums – they seem as authoritative a source as any on whether these institutions should be considered museums. The ICOM definition of a museum doesn't say that museums have to be housed in buildings. The list used to include Stockholm's Skansen which is another example of an open-air museum. Plus ships can be museum objects: the Vasa Museum also used to be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The American Alliance of Museums includes, according to its site, "art, history, science, military, maritime, and youth museums, as well as public aquariums, zoos, botanical gardens, arboretums, historic sites, and science and technology centers.". Is it your intention to include all of those in the list of most-visited museums?SiefkinDR (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I intend to include all sites identified as museums in secondary sources like the AAM but I also intend to be consistent with the ISO 18461 guideline. So aquariums, zoos, botanical gardens and arboretums are out, but the rest are in. Cobblet (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park (again)

I contacted the public affairs officer of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park and asked what the attendance was at the San Francisco Maritime Museum, within the park. The answer is 350,000 visitors for fiscal year 2017. The figure 4.4 million is the total for the Aquatic Park (2.9 million), the Hyde Street Pier (900,000), and the Visitor Center (290 thousand visitors). She wrote: "in a sense we function as a "museum" overall, but we do have a separate building called the Maritime Museum."

Do you intend to include every national monument or park that a museum within it, even if it has a small number of visitors? I think this list should include museums more strictly defined, not including parks. I propose taking out the Maritime Museum, unless you come up with a better argument. Otherwise we will need to add all the national parks and monuments as museums. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for obtaining those numbers. I'll go over the criteria that the list is using:
  1. Compliance with ISO 18461. The ISO standard says to include "historical monuments and sites of a museum nature", "if they maintain a collection similar to museums." It doesn't say to exclude a site just because it's an "open-air museum", which it defines as a "museum that exhibits buildings and objects out-of-doors, often in archaeological sites, past industrial or mining heritage sites and settings of recreated landscapes of the past, and which includes the site around the buildings." When the officer says "in a sense we function as a 'museum' overall", that seems to affirm that the park overall is a historical site of a museum nature. The collections at the Maritime Museum and Research Center and the ships at Hyde Street Pier constitute museum collections: "body of acquired objects held in title by a museum." But the Aquatic Park District, which receives the bulk of the visitors, does not seem to have a museum collection.
  2. Identification as a museum in secondary sources. This will be moot given the next criterion, so I haven't done an exhaustive analysis. But the American Alliance of Museums identifies the park as a "history museum," and the Council of American Maritime Museums includes the park in its directory.
  3. Attendance of over two million. The ISO standard does not provide guidance on how to handle attendance statistics for sites that have both museum and non-museum components. But I think it's reasonable to exclude attendance figures for the latter where such a breakdown is available. And if we subtract the 2.9 million visitors to Aquatic Park from the aggregate figure for the Historical Park as a whole, the site does not meet the two million threshold and should be removed.
I hope the above analysis shows why the current criteria do not force us to "add all the national parks and monuments as museums." Firstly, not all national parks and monuments are solely composed of museum collections. Secondly, not all national parks and monuments are identified as museums in secondary sources. Recall our discussion of Yosemite before: we know there's a museum within the park, but that doesn't make the entire park a museum, whether you look at the ISO guidance, which requires "maintaining a collection", or you look at secondary sources. I'll remove the San Francisco park from the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Independence National Historical Park

To be consistent, you should remove the Independence National Historical Park. It is an historic district with many buildings, whose main attraction is Independence Hall, where the the Declaration of Independence was signed. It has two small museums, one dedicated to Benjamin Franklin and the other to the U.S. Postal Service, but neither of these attracts the millions of visitors; they're going to see Independence Hall. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll remove it, not because of your unsourced assertion, but because the attendance figure seems to include visitors to the Independence Visitor Center, which made up around half of the total attendance in 2015 and 2016, and I can't find any suggestion of the visitor center containing a museum collection. Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing from the list

I wonder why you have omitted a number of major sites from the list; notably Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna, the Tower of London, Edinburgh Castle, The Taj Mahal, and the Grand Palace Bangkok. All of these would seem to the meet the criteria you are using, and have more than 2 million visitors.

Also, please don't accuse me of being "non-neutral." That's not how discussions with other editors are conducted on Wikipedia. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

We have discussed previously why Schonbrunn and the Taj Mahal are not included – the question is whether secondary sources refer to these sites as museums. Similarly, ALVA does not classify the Tower of London or Edinburgh Castle under museums but under heritage and cathedrals. I think the Grand Palace would be subject to the same concerns you expressed about the American historical parks: is the figure limited to visitors of the museum collections, or are, say, King Bhumibol's 12 million-plus mourners going to be included in the 2017 attendance figure?
My neutrality concerns are based on my observations of how the list had been constructed in the past and the tenor of the discussion up until this point. My concerns will be alleviated if both of those things change in the future. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm just asking you to be consistent. I don't think Schonbrunn should be on the list of museums, because in my opinion it's clearly a palace and historical monument, not a museum. It's exactly the same in its content, layout, exhibits and even gardens as the Palace of Versailles but you've included Versailles. Versailles is not in the AECOM list and shouldn't be in this list. Nor should other palaces and historical monuments. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your personal opinion; I'm interested in what relevant reliable sources say. That is the whole point of the NPOV policy. Again I refer to you to our previous discussions, which show there is a significant difference in how sources treat Schönbrunn and Versailles. The AECOM list, which I will again repeat is completely silent on how it defines a museum, is just one of many sources we should be taking into account. Attempts to limit the scope of an article to only those sources that happen to present a view consistent with one's personal opinion is the kind of bias we should be avoiding. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I have now found the official list of institutions classified as "museums" by Statistik Austria. Schönbrunn is not on the list. Statistik Austria's museum statistics can be found here. Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


Differences

We're actually not so far apart in our goals; we both want the list to be up to date and comprehensive, and accurate. We can, and need to, work out any differences by discussion, per Wikipedia rules.

I was not proposing that we include Schonbrunn; I know it's not a museum, but neither is the Palace of Versailles. The official name is the Chateau de Versailles. There is a small museum in one part, but it's a restored palace. It might be listed for statistical purposes with museums, but all of the descriptions of it on French sites call it simply a chateau of palace; unlike the Louvre, which has been a museum since the late 18th century. It has no galleries of art or paintings; it just has restored rooms of the Palace with furniture and some art. Its not included on either the AECOM museum index or the Art Newspaper list, for the simple reason that it isn't considered a museum. Do you have any source that refers to "The Museum of Versailles?"

It's important that we have an outside source, such as AECOM or the Art Newspaper, for including any museum on the list. It's not sufficient to do our own research and use that as a basis for including a site. The TEA/AECOM list is a perfectly valid source: The China Daily News Service quoted it at length when the the TEA/AECOM put the National Museum of China as the most visited museum in the world. Nobody can quote Wikipedia unless it has a credible outside source, But we can work these things out as the article develops. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll quote what I already said a few weeks ago: "Versailles appears on the European Group of Museum Statistics (EGMUS) list referenced in the article. The EGMUS data is also published by Eurostat in its 2016 publication on 2016 Culture statistics: Versailles appears on p. 39. And as I've already alluded to, the French Ministry of Culture explicitly names Versailles as one of the seven "museums" (along with the Louvre, Orsay, Centre Pompidou, etc.) that have "traditionally" comprised the category of French museums with over a million visitors: see p. 14 of its 2012–2014 report on museum attendance statistics."
In fact, Versailles has officially been a museum since 1837. The body that administers Versailles is called the Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles. Its enabling statute gives it the mandate of conserving, managing and presenting the collections of the "musée national des châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon." Other sources referring to Versailles as a museum include its own website, the BnF, a chief architect of the Historic Monuments Commission ("Here, it's the palace itself that's the museum"), the tourist office of Versailles, Britannica, and the French Wikipedia. Versailles has a centre that carries out the kind of research that would expected at a museum institution and consistent with the ICOM/ISO definition of a museum. A typical historic building like Schönbrunn doesn't have such a feature.
I don't dispute the accuracy of the figures reported in the TEA/AECOM list; but to maintain the claim that Versailles is not a museum just because that single source does not include it, while ignoring the institution's official status and actual function as a museum, as well as the publications of Eurostat/EGMUS and the French Ministry of Culture on museum statistics, would be to ignore "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" – in other words, the basic requirement of NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on list length

Closing this discussion as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. Consensus is to have the cut off at 2 million. I appreciate SiefkinDR's point that it cuts out some of the museums they consider to be well-known, but the article is a list of 'most-visited' museums, not 'most-well-known', and the points about too low a threshold leading to excessive maintenance are well-made. Whether the list should be subdivided into 'types' of museum is a separate discussion to have. Fish+Karate 13:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current list is limited to museums "whose most recently reported attendance exceeds two million visitors per year." It contains 73 museums. Is this an appropriate length for the list? Should it be made longer or shorter? Cobblet (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I am the editor responsible for the recent overhaul of the list. A week ago, the threshold for the list was one million visitors, and contained 87 entries. We use attendance thresholds and leave the list unranked out of recognition for the fact that the definition of a museum by the International Council of Museums is vague and there is no single authoritative source for what is or is not a museum. We have been consulting relevant secondary sources to make that call. Also the list includes figures from 2016 and 2017 depending on when the most recent figure came out, and it seems wrong to rank attendance figures from different years when these can fluctuate quite a bit.
I saw that the list failed to take into account several institutions identified as museums in reliable secondary sources, so I started to expand it. I got as far as adding 30 museums before realizing that there were far more museums with over one million visitors than I had anticipated. So I asked here if we could raise the threshold to two million, which the creator of this list accepted. The list was then reduced to 54 entries, which subsequently grew to 73 entries as I continued my research: this talk page documents some of my work. My research is done now and I hadn't planned on making any more revisions until the newest editions of the major industry publications on the topic came out this summer.
The original creator of the list is now concerned that the list omits "many of the major art museums of Europe and the United States", and would like to relax the threshold to 1.5 million to allow some of these to be added back. As that editor has not demonstrated an interest in expanding the list in a manner that complies with NPOV, I'll have to put in significant amount of work to do so. I'd welcome input from the community on the appropriateness of the current threshold before we make any change to it. Cobblet (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Response I respectfully disagree with the above. The list was previously based primarily on the annual Museum Index of the Themed Entertainment Association. The editor above decided to add additional sources and a much broader definition of museum, and greatly expanded the list, so that it now includes not only traditional museums as defined by the Museum Index, but also historical monuments, palaces, battlefields, and historical parks. He lso raised the threshold to two million a year. As a result he cut out many of the major museums of the United States and Europe, including the Academia in Florence, the Guggenheim Museum, the Chicago Art Institute, and many others. He added the Maritime Park in San Francisco, which has a large number of visitors because it is free and next to Fisherman's Wharf, but cut out the Fine Arts museums of San Francisco. He also cut out almost all of the museums in Latn America, because they did not meet his threshold. There is now only one museum in South America on the list, and just one from Mexico. There is not a single museum in Africa on the list. He is still adding "museums" in the broadest sense of the term, and since he has raised the minimum number of visitors to two million a year, more and more major major museums in Europe and the U.S. will have to be cut from the list.
  • Possible Alternatives
There are several alternatives which I think could resolve the issues.
One: put the threshold number at one million. That would make the list considerably longer, but, unless the definition is made even broader, would include most all major museums in the world.
Two: Divide the list into categories, and make separate lists within the article for history museums, science museums, historical monuments, battlefields, and parks.
Three: Organize the list by geography: within the article, have separate lists of the most-visited museums in Europe, North America, Africa, South America, and the Pacific so all continents are represented.
Further suggestions and ideas are welcome. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The current definition of the list is the one adopted by the International Council of Museums, and quoted by the ISO in its standard on museum statistics, and followed by UNESCO and many national statistical and cultural agencies, some of which are cited as sources. SiefkinDR is mistaken on several points. The TEA-AECOM list says nothing about how it defines a museum. The list has always included some palaces like the Louvre and the Hermitage, and the Auschwitz memorial was also added to the list early on. I have continued to add historic sites to the list only where there are secondary sources that identify such sites as museums. There was never an African museum on the list to begin with and I have been unable to find any African museum that exceeds one million visitors, let alone two. I added two Mexican museums in my first edit to the list, both of which still remain. Indeed it was the omission of those two museums that drew my attention to the list's under-representation of museums outside western Europe and the US in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Response Might one approach be to take the top x% of museums from each continent, and then group them geographically? This may be an unreasonable workload, I'm not sure how much data you already have. Additionally, from a 'common-sense' perspective, I feel most people would not classify a 'battleground' or 'monument' (etc) as a 'museum', regardless of the official definition or lack thereof. For that reason, I think sub-categorisation on the same page might be warranted. ῤerspeκὖlὖm(talk)(spy) 04:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    I just realised my first suggestion corresponds to the 3rd option that SiefkinDR suggested. ῤerspeκὖlὖm(talk)(spy) 04:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Two million is a reasonable cutoff. Trying to use one million would probably more than triple the length, which is probably overboard for most readers and for maintenance. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the Forbidden City the most visited museum in the world?

Is there a reliable source that says that the Forbidden City (here called the Palace Museum) is the most visited museum in the world?

This ranking is contradicted by the two major sources for the article, the TEA-AECOM Museum index, and the Art Newspaper annual survey, both of which rank the Louvre as number one, with the National Museum of China in second place. It is also contradicted by the China Daily News Service, which in 2017 reporter that the Louvre and National Museum of China were top museums. China Daily cited the TEA-AECOM survey. None of these sources make any mention of the Palace Museum or Foribidden City.

The inclusion of the Forbidden City appears to be original research. Unless this ranking has a reliable source, the Forbidden City should be dropped and the Louvre put back the top. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See the sources I gave in "Comments on latest changes" above. The Art Newspaper survey is irrelevant since it only lists art museums. Cobblet (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you haven't answered the question. Can you cite any reliable source that says that the Foribdden City is the most visited museum in the world? At least three reliable sources, including the China Daily news agency, say that the Louvre is the most visited museum. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes: see sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 I gave in that comment. And 6 explicitly compares the Palace Museum (favourably) against the Louvre. The Art Newspaper list is irrelevant, and you haven't given a link to your China Daily source, so the only source you've actually given is the TEA-AECOM list, which as I've noted many times in the past, gives no explanation whatsoever as to what it considers a museum, and cannot be regarded as definitive for that very reason. Cobblet (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

National Museum of China was most visited museum in China in 2017

The claim that the Forbidden City was the most visited museum in the world in 2017 is, to say the least, highly disputed. According to three respected sources, the most visited museum in China in 2017 (and the second most visited in the world), was the National Museum of China in Beijing, not the Forbidden City. The sources are the TEA-AECOM survey, the Art Newspaper survey, and (speaking of 2016) the China Daily news service. (See Chinadaily.com.cn, "National Museum of China of Beijing was the world's most visited museum in 2016, says an annual report on global attractions," June 15, 2017.)

The Art Newspaper survey, a major source for this article, includes the National Museum of China as an art museum, and includes the Palace Museum in Taiwan, but makes no mention of the Foribidden City. The Art Newspaper list and the TEA-AECOM list both show the Louvre number one in 2017, followed by the National Museum of China. They make no mention of the Forbidden City.

The only source cited that calls the Forbidden City the most visited museum in the world is an interview with the Director of the Forbidden City that was published in the South China Morning Post in June, 2017.

The article should be revised and properly cited to put the Louvre number one and the National Museum of China number two, citing the TEA-AECOM survey and Art Newspaper rankings. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not respectful of you to continue to repeat points that already have been rebutted. The Art Newspaper only ranks art museums. The omission of the Forbidden City and other museums on this list from the Art Newspaper list is irrelevant. The China Daily article you're citing is only quoting the TEA-AECOM list. Elsewhere, China Daily reports that the "world's most visited museum" is the Forbidden City.[12][13] The same claim is made by The Economist, Quartz, The Wall Street Journal, and the South China Morning Post. Cobblet (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not disrespectful at all to point out that the ranking of the Forbidden City as number one museum in the world s very controversial, and is not shared by all sources. There are obviously different points of view on why this is, and they should be stated in the article. I would suggest a new section be added to the article, briefly explaining the controversy, and giving both points of view. In the spirit of compromise, why don't we take a try at that?SiefkinDR (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope it's not disrespectful to also point out that sources you cite, the Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Quartz, are all quoting the same source, the author Mark O'Neill, who had just published a book on the Forbidden City. The South China Morning Post is quoting the Director of the Forbidden City. They're not necessarily neutral and objective sources. [
Also, if the Forbidden City is not an art museum, what kind of museum is it? The article on the Forbidden City linked in the article calls it an art museum. [User:SiefkinDR|SiefkinDR]] (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss any new points you raise; less happy to be obliged to constantly repeat myself. You make an interesting observation, although none of those sources quote O'Neill on that point. There are other sources not linked to O'Neill that make the same point and also directly compare the Forbidden City's attendance with that of the Louvre.[14][15][16]
I'm OK with adding a note pointing out that the TEA-AECOM list does not include the Forbidden City in its rankings if the same note also points out that the TEA-AECOM list defines no criteria for what types of institutions it includes on its rankings. The Forbidden City includes historical documents and ancient books in its collection, not to mention lots of paraphernalia that not everyone would consider "art", so I'm not surprised the Art Newspaper doesn't consider it an art museum. I'm also not surprised that Wikipedia calls it an art museum since Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and art comprises most of what is prominently displayed to visitors. It would be more accurate to call it a cultural museum, or even a general museum if we're adopting the ISO 18461 terminology. Cobblet (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is disrespectful to all parties to only present 'facts' (themselves questionable) only convenient to one's own 'case' (and having a 'case' is a no-no here).

  • The Forbidden City as an Art museum: forget it. No publication anywhere indicates it as that, as far as I know, and even then most referencable sources would have to indicate it as such for it to be considered such here.
  • The Forbidden City as a museum: again, it's the preponderance in all available sources that decides this. IMHO, I would question those numbers (obligatory 'educational visits' are surely counted and make much, if not most, of those 'visits'; but if we're going to question that, it should be verified for the Louvre, too), but even then, it's not anyone's opinion, that counts, it's the preponderance present in all sources that decides, not us. TP ✎ ✓ 06:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Potential sources

These sources were listed in the lead section. I think we can use any reliable source, but these are certainly good ones to start with:

  • Art Newspaper
  • Museum Index of the Themed Entertainment Association (TEA) and engineering firm (AECOM)

Qono (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most-visited_museums/Archive_1&oldid=1136945605"