Talk:Palace

He has left out the palaces of Germany in the list, such as Schloss Charlottenburg in Berlin or the palaces of "mad" Ludwig II of Bavaria for instance, please add them.

I have had to return some bits of text to the well-meaning edit of 13 July which swept aside historically accurate text as "questionable claims" and substituted waffle as "reasonable tone". Without picking it apart in detail, I have included as much of the new text as was historically accurate. But indeed, the few non-royal or -episcopal palaces in the country are grand country homes etc etc unnecessarily obscures the point that Blenheim is the only non-episcopal, non-royal palace in England. A point worth making, because it sharpens the meaning of "palace". --Wetman 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've tried to work constructively with your points; but I've ended up removing a bunch of what you restored. Let me explain. First, there are lots of bishops with palaces — Lambeth Palace, Bishopthorpe Palace, the former Winchester Palace, the Bishop's Palace in Wells, etc. etc. Next, the Palace of Holyrood House isn't just Scottish — it's also Royal and hence it didn't need to be caveated in that sentence. Finally, I once again "waffled" with your last sentence — aside from the editorializing tone it seemed to take, I don't really get what was it trying to say. "The Crystal Palace didn't seem like the thin edge of the wedge; but in fact it was." Didn't seem like it to whom? How is the Crystal Palace OK but the Alexandra Palace an outrage? etc. Doops | talk 06:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The confident editor may be suprised to learn that the reason "there are lots of bishops with palaces" as the editor has apparently noticed, is that all bishops have palaces, because that's where the administration of the diocese is sited, because that's what palace means. A difficult point to make, it appears. The point of Holyrood being a palace is that it is Scottish, and Scotland is a kingdom, thus with a palace, because that's where the administration of a kingdom is sited. There's that same point again that seems not to have percolated through. When I return to sort this article later, I shall once again have the courtesy to spend time carefully editing rather than reverting. --Wetman 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Look, I'm sorry to be petty and make a big deal about this; but here is the text of that paragraph according to your edit of 02:29, 13 July 2005:

In England, by tacit agreement, there have been no "palaces" other than those used by royalty and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In this sense, the archbishop's "palace" is the center of church government, as the king's is the center of royal government. The Palace of Beaulieu, seemingly an exception, is none: Beaulieu gained its name precisely when Thomas Boleyn sold it to Henry VIII in 1517; previously it had been known as Walkfares. The Palace of Holyrood, it will be noted, is in Scotland, and when the Palace of Blenheim (illustration, right) was the gift of a grateful nation to a great general, the name was part of the extraordinary honor.

As you can see, this version — your version — contains an outright error with respect to the bishops; and the Holyrood comment is a complete non sequitur where it is placed. (Its context is an explanation of why Beaulieu and Blenheim aren't exceptions to the "royalty-only" rule; Holyrood is royal — and of course, being Scottish, doesn't belong in an England ¶ anyway...) Surely you will not argue that these two points didn't deserve to be fixed? When you got on your high horse on this talk page, had you even looked carefully at my edits? In mentioning these two fixes on the talk page, I was just trying to be polite and explain my edits; I wasn't arguing that bishops or Holyrood were counterarguments to your message.

Actually, let me point out that you appear to be heavily invested in that message (that palaces are, by definition, centers of administration). And of course, perhaps you're right about it! Yes, this idea has indeed percolated through, thanks; and I'm always glad to hear interesting ideas. But it really rubs me the wrong way for the article to have a heavily polemical tone; and dare I say that your edit of 2:29 prioritized your personal obsession (palace-as-administration) over good encyclopediacity (if I may coin a word)?

At any rate, I'll go through now and try to make sure that my edits haven't obscured the point about administration. TTFN, Doops | talk 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Can some please add something about the Grand Palace in Thailand in this article? Thanks. --Dara 23:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gryffindor  02:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It says that in German "Schloss" and "Palast" are used. But the word "Palais" also exists, which is not the same as Schloss or Palast though. I think a differentiation is needed, does anyone know more about this dilemna and how we could solve it? Gryffindor  02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The article points out that French makes a distinction between urban 'palais' and rural 'chateaux'. This is fair enough as a semantic distinction in French, but as the article is about palaces as that term is used in English, then surely the list of palaces should include Versailles, which is regarded as a palace in English. Is it correct to rigidly force the French meaning on an English-language article? Bathrobe 11:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rigid, perhaps. Certainly knowledgable. The "Palace of Versailles" English-language Wikipedia title is a minor gaffe among those who kinow better. It betrays unfamiliarity with the subject. What's the point of looking up something in an encyclopedia, if you aren't being given the actual distinctions, ones that have arisen out of their own history, which you find outlined for you? Doubtless, it would be reassuring to read a reflection of one's own casual chit-chat usages; but you couldn't move forward that way. --Wetman 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

But now the page is schizophrenic: as far as palace/palais/palast/palazzo is concerned, the page is all about making a point. It has a thesis. (I don't disagree with this thesis; but of course it could be argued that it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia page to have one.) It goes on, however, to cover palaces from other cultures around the world, where the word "palace" doesn't enter into things.

When you think of it, perhaps here's the schizophrenia: except for Europe, this article is about palaces. But where Europe is concerned, it's about the word "palace." (To be fair, I see that there's some discussion under "China" of the words involved there.) Perhaps there should be a § about the term, to which Wetman's point could be confined, and the rest of the article could be about the buildings themselves? (Including, arguably, Versailles.) Doops | talk 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Except for the history and development of the idea of "palace" in Europe, the rest is merely a list. My investment is in information: any enrichment or correction is enthusiastically awaited. Perhaps Doops will permit corrected information to stand ("perhaps there should be a § about the term"), and now add the history and development of the idea of "palace" outside Europe, thus curing any tendencies towards "schizophrenia". --Wetman 04:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with Doops about the schizophrenia. In fact, I originally looked up this article after a visit to Europe in the company of some Chinese who were most curious as to which was larger, Versailles or the Forbidden City. These are comparisons that people make and they do make sense in their own way. It seemed strange to me that a comparison would be considered somehow 'invalid' because Versailles is a 'chateau' and the Forbidden City is a 'palace'.

However, I do appreciate Wetman's point that the distinction between 'palais' and 'chateau' is a knowledgeable one (the article certainly enriched my knowledge). I certainly don't advocate throwing it out. I merely felt that the list of palaces should include links to chateaux, such as Versailles, perhaps by splitting the French links into palaces proper ('palais') and 'chateaux'.Bathrobe 14:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The writer forgot to include Luxemborg Palace. Wonderful place. Please add.

I doubt that the image of "Emir's Palace" from Syriana qualifies as fair use, especially as the image is not credited or labelled properly. 131.111.8.103 01:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'd like to know if there's any interest in adding a section about "Royal Apartments" to this article? I've searched around a bit but I can't find a good page. The material is probably inappropriate for the Apartment page. For your convienence here's the google/Wikipedia search. Ewlyahoocom 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if maybe, under the 'palaces elsewhere' heading, we should add a refrence to the American continent in somewhere -as it was closely linked to Europe and its royalty...??? I'd like to add a little piece on Chapultepec Palace in Mexico. It had a history before Emperor Maximilian of Mexico and Empress Carlota, but they made it into their official Palace in the 1860's during the Second Mexican Empire. It is the only dwelling built (or remodeled... ; ] ) for Royalty in the Americas. Let me know...Cali567 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Editors of this article forgot to provide reliable references for this article. Please add them. Squash Racket (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces has assigned User:Maxone999 the job of inserting enticing copy from the hotel brochures, and copyright corporate photos into all its Wikiopedia entries: see these User Contributions. Someone with more tact than I needs to explain.--Wetman (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

saying the USA has mansions that are like palaces is pointless, nearly every country has one of them, how ever Puerto Rico should be kept. It also has no refrences, the USA should be removed from a subtitle and should come under 'other. Alexsau1991 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it would no go amiss to mention somewhere in the article the use of the German term "Palast" during the Cold War in regions behind the former Iron Curtain. I recall such civic buildings as the "KulturPalast" in East Berlin and in Budapest, in Hungarian, of course. If anyone knows more about these, I think that the usage warrants mention in this article.Peaky beaky (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is written:

Palazzo is more broadly used in Italian than its English equivalent “palace”.

So, I request to merge it. Franta Oashi (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since palazzo means apartment building, no doubt that should be merged with Palace too, then.--Wetman (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

And what about a "disambiguation page"?

I just repeat what they said: [it:Palazzo] = [en:Palace] (by meaning).

Thus to be merged... That's all my point. Franta Oashi (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'd say that's a false equality - a [en:Palace] is always a [it:Palazzo], but not the other way round: a Palazzo is now far more often a hotel, block of flats or office block. Jezza (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you dislike the page Palace (disambiguation), then? --Wetman (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ha, got more complicated, I see: I would offer to split Palazzo: let's use the Palazzo (disambiguation) page. I still would put the "palace" of palazzo part to the Palace page. Let the Palazzo (tenement) is set. Franta Oashi (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What I see wrong is, that Palazzo page explains two separate meanings, and the Palazzo (disambiguation) page exists in the same time, even referenced from Palazzo. So, the part for the Palace meaning shall be moved where it belongs. Franta Oashi (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What I see wrong is that we are straining to equate two similar but different concepts, merely because the words are linguistically similar. Palazzo just denotes a grand building, whereas Palace also connotes its use Jezza (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems that palazzo may be more akin to the English Townhouse than the English Country house. That is to say the town residence of a noble Italian family. Is not the term villa used in Italy where in England country house would be used? The article List of palazzi in Italy lists palazzi "by town or city", seemingly none are in the countryside? Care must be taken in equating Palazzo with the English royal palace. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

While the other sections of this article talk about specific palaces, the section on Portugal does not. It sounds like it was written by the office of tourism, highlighting the beauty of Portugal without any relevant mention of Portuguese palaces. 138.162.0.45 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm agree with you, the Portugal section is awfully sounds like tourism advertising, need rewriting right away. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC))Reply

I must agree with an anonymous contributor here, the article (especially the Mexico, Portugal and Russia section) has too many picture. This is an encyclopedia article, not a wikimedia commons category gallery, or even worst, tourism advertisement. I propose to limit the picture of each country, only 5 pictures; 1 picture is the main picture, and 4 pictures as gallery picture. We should do it justly and uniformly. (Gunkarta (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)).Reply

Why do the sections for Spain and Portugal sound like weirdly enthusiastic travel advertisements? "Mediterranean plains and whitewashed villages nestled atop the promontories overlooking the great Atlantic are characteristically dotted with palaces like few other nations." Also, awkward phrasing: "these palatial estates run rampant."

For Spain, annoying use of the first person: "...we should point to the Alcázar of Seville." Someone should fix this nonsense. I can, I guess. If nobody else wants to step up.

Just noticed someone else posted something similar before about Portugal. If it needs clarification at this point, I agree with you. Cioffd (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The word "palace" comes from Old French palais (imperial residence), from Latin Palātium, the name of one of the seven hills of Rome.

That is not correct. The correct oldest ethymology is from Iranian "Pala", early greek "pallas" and semitic "Palestina" means "Land for great residence" (*Palas-tana). It is existent in all languages of IE, Arabia, India, Skythian and Semitic. Palas is a word for gods, a very old title, like "Pallas Athena". And all gods have a great house, a temple. I cant say, what is the source. Phallus is a other derivat of this, check the story of Kronos, Osiris and Myths of Hittiti. Palavani means the holy language of Kurds, Palavi is the holy language of persian. The early germanic form from iranian "Pala" is "Vala", the france "Valloni" is from Allemanic, other germanic words like "Walhall", "Walfahrt" (Trip for prising god), "Valley" are derivates from Vala. Odin is a "Valfather", a father of gods. I have no idea what is the source, but it is not IE. It is much earlier, maybe Old European or isolate Old World language?

The german "Palast" is a loanword, i think from late Middleage, from migrated Hugenottes or a trendy word from SunKing "Luis XIV" or so. Palais is e.g. in Sanssouci. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanssouci In modern germanic the homeword for a great main-residence is "Schloss". A Palais is more a Summer-Residence or a Villa (a "Val"-house). Palast is modern more a glamour big he house for Stars and very important peoples, mostly we mean that house is too big and too expensive for a little person. Hope that helps to unterstand. Sorry for bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.100 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I presume you have a WP:RS mentioning all of this speculative-sounding etymology you propose, otherwise there's little we can do with it here, per WP:OR (q.v.). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is te kind of dangereous mis-use of wikipedia, and these kind of universal articles should not only filled by users, in order to include all actors. And avoid exclusion. Morocco, a country where palaces and royal palaces and compounds are everywhere, is not mentionned in the article. Even other countries of North Africa, south of Spain, where the north african and arab architecture is very present, or arab countries. Is this deliberated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HfedBo (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• UmaidBhawan Exterior 1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Malacanang palace view.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Palacio do Planalto from Pixabay.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Government House in Baku.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what it says. The pictures are often far larger than the textboxes, and as a result, the long pictures usually bleed over into the other text areas, meaning that a section on Japanese palaces will have something about Armenian palaces and so on and so forth. Could there be a way to fix this? Edward hahm (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually it looks ok on my setup. There are so many different screens & settings, it's impossible to get it right for everyone. Are you viewing on a mobile? Trying to match text and images exactly is nowadays virtually impossible. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply