Talk:World Heritage Site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon World Heritage Site is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see World Heritage Site at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations / United Nations (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Protected areas (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Inscribed Properties[edit]

At UNESCO are inscribed a new Sites.-- (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Taj Mahal[edit]

Site #252: Taj Mahal, India.

The pictures in World Heritage Site, should represent the most famous and well known sites, and not unkown and unfamous sites. In fact the article is not to promote readers to unheard of places, but with regard to the limitations, hilight the most famous and known sites among the hundreds that exist on the list. Therefore I propose replacement of the picture of Taj Mahal in India, instead of the Horezu Monastery in Horezu. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better to promote readers to relatively "unknown" places (unknown for some people that is). Everyone (in the West) probably knows about Egyptian Pyramids or the Great Wall... but not Banaue Rice Terraces or Monastery in Romania. Plus, the terms "famous" and "well-known" are very relative, what is famous to some might not be for others. However, I really dread when users keep adding images to the gallery and it end up stretching the entire article. I actually think the gallery section is not necessary at all.
You know, I would actually propose (if not delete the gallery), to change a majority of the pictures in this gallery to more obscure sites for all of the countries.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes Israel: Europe and North America?[edit]

The infoboxes for Israel show 'Europe and North America' as region. Is this correct? Is there a list showing exactly which country belongs to which region. Can this information be found on the Site? I can't find it. Wiki-uk (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found the list ordered by REGION now:
This makes it clear. I will change them back to Europe and North America. Wiki-uk (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are the Wikipedia lists not conform the Unesco list actually? Would it not make things more simple? Wiki-uk (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Some information on how much it costs to be considered, and if successful registered, and whether there are repeat costs, would be interesting. Or perhaps conversely Unesco gives money for the up keep of the sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talkcontribs) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey, and Saint Margaret's Church[edit]

I have the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey, and Saint Margaret's Church, which are all one site, to the list as there were only 5 examples of sites from Europe and North America, despite 50% of sites being from Europe and North America, yet there were 7 examples of sites from Asia despite only 21% of sites being from Asia. Usergreatpower (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Grouping of locations[edit]

Why don't we just group by continent in the section where the article lists the number of articles per region? There's no reason to put the America and Europe in the same category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to add another photo[edit]

Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg To the page. Cityofblindinglights24 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A very unknown UNESCO site[edit]

The Shalimar gardens of Lahore

Very few "westerners" know about the Shalimar gardens in Pakistan. It is an example of Mughal architecture different and less known than the the Taj. It would be a very suitable picture would it not?--Westernpit (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the sites per country table?[edit]

I mean... the current table contradicts itself... countries like Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras are all in North America but are also part of Latin America. Also, the Arab States are located in Africa and Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiridaz (talkcontribs) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Great Living Chola Temples[edit]

Site #250: The sculptures at the site of the ancient Chola temples.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A.arvind.arasu (talkcontribs) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal always overshadows the rest of the Heritage Sites in India due to its imposing architecture and scenic beauty.But there are many other places to visit and observe.Any typical tourist from outside India would have known very little about these wonderful sculptures and civilisations that existed thousands of years ago in the regions of Tanjore.Thats why Ive added up the pic of The Great Living Chola Temples to create an awareness among these rich and historic structures to all those who are navigated to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.arvind.arasu (talkcontribs) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Criticisms of Criteria Section[edit]

It seems to me that the comments regarding "Rachel's Tomb" are not neutral.

Both of the citations used to evidence the claim, "there is no documented history of using the site for that purpose[as a Mosque]" are to the Israel National News, a very pro-zionist publication.

The actual article for the discussed site seems to have many more nuanced details, such as that Israel apparently built a wall around the site and only provides access to it for Israeli citizens.

What does everyone think? I'm personally not well versed in the situation, but the phrasing of this section seemed blatantly biased.

Joeklein (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So please do some investigating and googling and debunk this report you doubt if you can find verifiable material saying otherwise. If you go to the Rachel's Tomb page, you won't find any evidence either, and not because it's being kept out either. You'll find that the Arabs and even recently the Palestinians, refer to it as Rachel's Tomb (Rachel is a highly regarded proohetess) and that there is an adjacent cemetery, but no mosque. UNESCO is caught supporting revisionism and erasing Jewish history. --Shuki (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a storm in a teacup. UNESCO calls it "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb" and maintain it's in Palestine. Their longer explanation from a few months ago is here. It's a territorial issue, not religious; UNESCO is denying the Israeli claim to the land and not the long Jewish history of reverence for the site. The mosque has been there since at least the 1400's although the name is recent. Sol (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, (talk your link to prove the rachel's tomb was a mosque, actually just says that there was something called rachels tomb, not a mosque. in fact, it clearly says "Qewer Rahel" which is HEBREW for "rachel's tomb."

the section should probably be included as a criticism, but not as World_Heritage_Site#Criticism_of_criteria because its not the criteria thats being criticized, but rather. its politics. if there is a link that supports the alternative view, link it. either way. im gonna clean up the writing Seeasea (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking at the last link I posted? It's in the first page section that comes up,I screwed up the link. Some Russian dude from the 1400's describes it as a mosque. That's the oldest reference I've seen. It also pops up in a lot of the 19th-century travel literature. Sol (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right about the section title. The section mentions nothing about the criteria, just UNESCO's supposed politics. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the information pasted onto this article in the first place? This is a political controversy about UNESCO and Israel's National Heritage Sites. This is definitely not the right article.--TheLeopard (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tikal, The Largest and Most Important City of The Maya[edit]

The Magnificent Pyramid of El Gran Jaguar, Tikal, Guatemala

I think we should add Tikal to the images listed in the article, its the Largest city of the Maya and it also has some of the largest structures made by them, Tikal is also large Nature Reserve that is home of lots of endangered flora and fauna species, and also one of the first 100 UNESCO heritage sites, being number 64. By this and more I think Tikal deserves to be listed in this article as one of the most important UNESCO heritage sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda-maniack (talkcontribs) 01:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Image list extremely West-centered[edit]

As usual, African sites get the shaft, but actually, most regions of the world are ommitted. 7 of these pictures come from Western countries. There are none from Africa, none from South America (although I guess Chichen Itza is supposed to cover the region), 1 from the Middle East (Egypt), and 1 from Asia (Philippines). I am not here to promote any specific entries, but would it be okay if the pictures reflected the "World" part of "World Heritage"?

I have attempted to rectify this by adding diversity. Currently it is 2 Asia (China and Philippines), 1 Africa (Uganda), 1 Middle East (Egypt), 2 Europe (Italy and Russia), 1 Oceania (Australia), 1 United States, and 2 Latin America (Mexico and Uruguay). I tried to choose interesting yet lesser known sites in order to prevent the same old places from showing up everywhere. I'm sure someone will not like something however, the previous ten were obviously no good. Like I said above, I don't have any agenda to add specific sites; my intention is to add diversity in order to showcase the greater scope of World Heritage Sites. Puchiwonga (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, and even being West centered, it is still far from being a good article about what a "World Heritage Site" is, because it is actually about the concept of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Back in the 16th century the idea of the "Seven Wonders of the World" was conceived, and I think this article should take it from there, and lead up to lists like the UNESCO ones,m but be more about awareness of cultural preservation around the world. Jane (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding a picture of an industrial heritage site?[edit]

Looking through the talk page, it looks like a lot of debates about picture choices have never gone anywhere. Nevertheless, there's one change I want to suggest. At the moment, most of the pictures are of ancient monuments, and from the page you wouldn't realise that quite a few more modern sites from the Industrial revolution and later, such as Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape, Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal and Völklingen Ironworks were included. Does anyone support swapping in a picture of a later world heritage site? I was thinking perhaps Semmering railway, since it's relatively picturesque, but other options include Ironbridge Gorge, Lifts on the old Canal du Centre and Mountain Railways of India (which might be the one most readers would recognise). Smurrayinchester 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply, I've swapped out Brihadeeswarar Temple for Mountain Railways of India. This maintains the current balance of nations (swapping one Indian heritage site for another) but makes sure that modern industrial heritage is represented in the list. Smurrayinchester 13:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Add stonehenge[edit]

I think we should add Stonehenge as it is a very famous World Heritage Site. I think it's more famous than some of the other ones on there. Willrocks10 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding Video Content[edit]

Hampi is a World Heritage Site for its architecture. I would like to add video footage of various architectural landmarks around the village. The video was taken as part of a documentary by the Global Lives Project:

ruins or ruins Achituraya Temple general architecture

I would subclip the videos down to about one minute a piece. Jordanhkatz (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between Site and Listing[edit]

I think the start of this article should help to clarify the difference between a World Heritage Listing and World Heritage Site. I have noticed that some articles use the term "World Heritage Site", when they mean World Heritage Listing". That is a World Heritage Listing can include one or more World Heritage Sites. For example the "Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities)" includes 17 sites in one listing, where as "Himeji Castle" is the one and only site within the one listing.Whats up skip (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Territorial division chart[edit]

The Territorial Division chart is wrong in stating Poland has 13 World heritage sites. They have 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmichaeln (talkcontribs) 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Opportunity of tagging as World Heritage Site single landmarks belonging to one site[edit]

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Istanbul#Istanbul_World_Heritage_Sites about the opportunity of tagging as World heritage site a single landmark belonging to a site. Interested users can join. Alex2006 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)