Talk:World Heritage Site

New Inscribed Properties

At UNESCO are inscribed a new Sites.--82.200.186.226 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Site #252: Taj Mahal, India.

Site #597: Horezu Monastery in Horezu, Romania.

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 term "famous" and "well-known" are very relative terms, 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?

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:

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&l=en&&&mode=table&order=region

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)

Cost

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 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey, and Saint Margaret's Church

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

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 117.196.0.83 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to add another photo

To the page. Cityofblindinglights24 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A very unknown UNESCO site

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Great Living Chola Temples

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A.arvind.arasu (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Criticisms of Criteria Section

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.