Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Europe

Israel

As far as I know Israël is no part of Europe, neither statwise or geographicly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.39.127 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&l=en&&&mode=table&order=region Israel belongs to the Region Europe. Should it not be added here? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

YES! And I already did that. But it was removed. For purposes of UNESCO, Israel is part of Europe. Doesn't necessarily make sense but IT'S NOT WIKIPEDIA'S CALL TO MAKE. I'm restoring israeli sites. <eleland/talkedits> 06:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of Israel in the wikipedia list needs to be explained better in the list-article. I think it can be defended to include Israel with European countries, because UNESCO does it in its comparable list, but in the article currently it appears that it is Wikipedia making the decision, on its own. The sentence in the intro currently reads "Israeli sites are listed here, since the alternative 'Arab States' grouping is politically unacceptable." There is no source or other footnote given, leaving the appearance that it is Wikipedia editors' political decision to separate Israel from arab states. This is important to address in the intro, with sources. If it is addressed later in the list-article, sorry for my not seeing that yet, but it needs to be addressed upfront.

I suggest something like: "Following the example of UNESCO presentation of Israel with European countries, this list includes Israel." And, if a reference can be found, further add: "It is believed by UNESCO that the alternative of grouping Israel with 'Arab States' is politically unacceptable," or "It is believed by the United Nations that having UNESCO list Israel along with Arab nations is politically unacceptable". If something like the last sentence is added, IT MUST have a source.

If Israel remains in, actually, I think the article title should be changed to "List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and Israel". It will appear unusual, and why wikipedia chooses to include Israel with Europe will have to be explained immediately in the intro, but the current article title is not accurate.

Another fix for the title problem would be to credit/blame UNESCO directly for its decision, retitling to "UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites in Europe", and immediately explaining that it is UNESCO's decision to include Israel.

Alternatively, perhaps Wikipedia should be above politics and just list European states in this list-article, put Israel into a list of Middle East or other countries for a geographical area that Israel is, in fact, part of. doncram (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Henderson Island

Is is right to include Henderson Island in this since the article is titled "in Europe" as its in the South Pacific? I'm going to list it on the Asia and Australia Page as well. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Germany

Germany's list is inaccurate; according to the UNESCO official website, Germany only has 30 total World Heriage site, so the site of the ancient city of Trier wasn't on the UNESCO list at all, I don't know who added on to the Wikipedia's list. - Random User

That's not true. Germany has 32 sites (see here). Trier was the 7th German site to be listed, in 1986. athinaios | Talk 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany now has 33 sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.240.28 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany has now 11 times more heritage sites than the U.S., the so-called "cultural leader of the western world". --84.141.19.9 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the US has 20 sites, much more than an eleventh of 33 [1]. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Spain alone make up for over 160 sites, which is 8 times the number of sites in the US, yet for about 1/5 of the area. Therefore, UNESCO sites are 40 times more common in Western Europe than they are in the US. And I haven't even counted the Dutch and British sites... America is indeed a cultural and historical desert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.98.128 (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers in the list do not correlate to the numbers in the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.194.184 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mapping

Does anyone have a good way to plot these places on a map? I think that would be very helpful to undestand the places as a group.

UNESCO's site offers the coordinates for all of the Heritage Sites and shows them on a map, this could be a start for this project Aelfthrytha

UK list

The UK has its own page for it's sites. The listing on this page seems redundant in an article that's already very long. I tried editing it out, but there's a user that seems intent on reverting every edit I make on the UNESCO pages. Rather than participate in an edit war, I would bring it to the discussion page. Any thoughts?MArcane 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

what the fuck

at the end of page, right, there is one small pic......................... because of it page is so spacious... please correct it!

Images

Considering that some of the country lists here are illustrated, we should make sure that either they all are, or that none are, for the sake of evenness. Also, do we want the images to be 50px or 70px wide? At the moment, countries early in the alphabet use wider pictures than the ones further down. athinaios | Talk 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan in the list

Why world heritage sites in Kazakhstan are not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.204.24 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw mention somewhere else, perhaps in edit summary comments, that the 2 or 3 WHS sites in Kazakhstan are located in the part of the Kazakhstan that is in Asia, not the Europe part of the country. And the UNESCO puts them in its list for Asian influence cultures, not in its list for European influence cultures (which is not limited to geography: it includes Israel and the United States). Note this whole list-article needs to be revised to focus on the UNESCO European influence list, strictly, or to focus on geographical Europe, only. Either way, though, the 2 or 3 Kazakhstan ones seem not to belong here. Currently they are linked from List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aegean Islands in Asia?!

I thought I'd raise this here first rather than editing the page outright. No, most of the Aegean islands are not "geographically located in Asia". As correctly cited in the article on the Aegean islands, all but two of them belong to Greece, and the geographical boundary between Europe and Asia in the Aegean would be the boundary between Greece and Turkey. Please provide proof to the contrary or change the second phrase of the article.

Apapadop (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm removing this statement: "Asia Minor, Cyprus, all of the Aegean Islands, the Canaries, Malta, Sicily and Madeira are included although the first two and most of the third are geographically located in Asia whereas the latter four are geographically located in Africa." Most of the Aegean Islands are not "geographically located in Asia", and Sicily is not "geographically located in Africa". These islands are always associated with Europe, just like the British Isles, so there is absolutely no reason for such a disclaimer pointing out that these islands are included in Europe.

Skyduster (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On Kazakhstan, Israel, Other Countries that "Aren't in Europe"

I think the intro is a little silly in it's dance to justify what's listed here and what's not. An easy solution to this would be a more professional version of "UNESCO lists these sites with Europe so that's what we do too." Israel is included in the Europe-North America region by UNESCO, Kazakhstan is not, so the former is here and not the later. If someone wanted to go off on a mini-dissertation about the politicized history of UNESCO's regional groupings that would be fine too. I feel that this more succinct intro would help people understand the contents of this list better. How do others feel about this? --Chouji Ochiai (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Along with another editor i have been working on replacements for this entire page and the other WHS list-articles, too, in a sandbox, hope to put it out in public soon. doncram (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Chouji's approach is a very sensible one. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem

As has been made clear, Israel is part of the Europe & North America region as defined by UNESCO, so it certainly should be included on this list. However, the site "Old City of Jerusalem" is not under the state auspices of Israel. While the site is currently controlled by Israel, it was proposed by Jordan after Israel took full control of the city, and UNESCO specifically separated it from Israel's list of sites. Jerusalem is also listed under the "Arab States" region, not the "Europe and North America" region. If we're going to maintain accuracy, this site should not be listed with Israel. If Jerusalem is to be included here, it should be under "Jerusalem (Site Proposed by Jordan)," which is UNESCO's wording, and should include the disclaimer "(also included on the Arab States" You can find UNESCO's entry on Jerusalem here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/148

Such is my opinion. I hope I have defended it sufficiently. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Our articles aren't here to satisfy this or that party's sense of political correctness, but to inform our readers in an intuitive and efficient way. If Israel sites are to be listed on this page, outside readers unfamiliar with the legal niceties of the Israel-Palestine conflicts will naturally expect Jerusalem in that context. There was already an explanatory note. If that note isn't sufficient to your taste, you can add to it, but I don't see how it would be reader-friendly to remove the entry completely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's dangerous to dismiss factual accuracy as "political correctness," and to eliminate inconvenient details in order to improve readability. As long as this is a list of UNESCO-registered World Heritage Sites, I believe it should use UNESCO's definitions of where and what these sites are. Since you've made clear that you believe it's important that Jerusalem be included on this list, I'll add it as I proposed earlier, in accordance with UNESCO's list: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list Chouji Ochiai (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem is under Israeli control and will remain under Israeli control for a long time, it should be mentioned either as Jerusalem or inside Israel's world heritage sites. Also, Jerusalem was never proposed for any country and Israel legally controls half of it and the other half is supposed to be under Arab control and Jordan doesn't even want that land anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.180.4 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sortable List

It would seem useful to have this list in a sortable table rather than a long text document. Agreed? I'm willing to put in some time to make one and keep all of the current links, but not if this has already been shot down/others will revert it.

I agree it would be more useful. There's a draft table here and comments are welcome, although doncram (talk · contribs) is probably the best person to talk to. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This Page is Ugly

Those maps are hideous and illegible. I much prefer the look of List of World Heritage Sites in Asia. Pictures of some of the sites makes the page more vibrant and interesting. These maps are an eyesore, and make the page difficult to browse. These maps should not be featured like this. Puchiwonga (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem. Perhaps the maps should be transfered into specific articles, like List of World Heritage Sites in Russia, and here replaced with pictures.Greyhood (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They definitely look more fitting on the specific country articles. Puchiwonga (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Albania

Albania has four centers of UNESCO and not two. 1. Butrin in 1992 2. Historic Centers of Gjirokastra in 2005 3. Historic Centers of in 2009 4. Lake Ohrid (Albanian part) in 2009

Albanian former environment minister in 2009 Lufter Xhveli stated that the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid is a wealth of humanity. It should be separated Berat from Gjirokaster after different story and are different cities. --Irvi Hyka (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Irvi Hyka--Irvi Hyka (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

UNESCO disagrees. As it is UNESCO that draws up the list, the Wikipedia article follows their lead. Please adhere to the sources. Nev1 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

North America

In "UNESCO terms" there is no such region as Europe, but "Europe and North America". It seams to be sort of a twist that this article makes itself to appeare as a strict UNESCO-source follower. In my opinion World Heritage Sites are nominated by world organization UNESCO, however geographical boundaries of Europe are determined regardless of World Heritage Sites nomination. I suggest changing the title of this articla to List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and North America reflecting UNESCO region classification as individual UNESCO World Heritage Site wiki-articles do.--Jankoja1972 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Page formatting

This page badly needs formatting to cut out all the empty spaces. --Mallard16 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallard16 (talk • contribs)

Sites in Danger

Sites in Danger are not marked by an asterisk even though that's what the intro says. bamse (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In case of expansion

If somebody wants to expand this list into table form like it was done with the Africa list, an old revision of the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger (particularly the "Description" column) might be useful. bamse (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is discussion on what should be included in this and other regional lists of World Heritage Sites. Please voice your opinion on the issue here. Thank you. bamse (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel is in Western Asia

i think there is a mistake here. פארוק (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO puts it in Europe. Also have a look at the first (and possibly many more) discussions on this very page. bamse (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

i know. but i want everybody know this. "Israel" is country in Western Asia - and "Egypt" is in North Africa. פארוק (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, so where is the mistake? bamse (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

in the article of Israel was no mention to Western Asia like the other countries in the Middle East. many people think that israel is in africa. פארוק (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Israel is indeed in west Asia, but the Arabs hate Israel and refuse to associate with it for mostly racist reasons (it's been discussed to death elsewhere), Unesco thinks that Israel has lots to offer, but wants to be nice to the Arabs and their prejudices. Thus, they stuck it in Europe, as it is more European culturally.Ericl (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion to finalise how we divide our lists at WT:WHS. Please join in. Nightw 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lake Ohrid, Albanian part

Some years ago the Minister of Environment of Albania, Lufter Xhuveli, stated that the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid is part of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Add Albania the fourth WHS Lake of Ohrid. [2] [3] [4] Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)