This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservation Worldwide
Thoughts please:
When I started adding heritage-y type govt bodies for England, Wales etc I thought it would be good to provide as many links as possible.
In particular, I adopted a structure where each page for one of these UK agencies had links to:
a. Wiki pages for the other equivalent UK agencies
b. The *external* site of the agency itself
c. The *external* sites of the other UK agenices listed in (a).
---
Looking at it now, I am beginning to feel that (c) is a waste of time and space. If you are on the Enhlish Heritage (EH) page and you want to know about Historic Scotland (SH), you can easily go to the wiki SH page and from there, if you want it, the SH external website is only one click away.
So, I am feeling inclined to remove the (c) bits from these four pages as I do not think they add anything. Comments please? Nevilley
Yes, I think you're right. As long as one can link to the equivalent Wiki pages, one doesn't need the extra external links. I haven't really started adding external links to much of my output, so I'll be able to bear that in mind from now on. User:Renata
OK done that. I think it makes more sense and is more elegant in its current form. Thanks, Nev
which is a direct result of government policy, but only up to a point, Lord Copper. EH are primarily a quango and are largely autonomous in most of their activities. user:sjc
SJC's amendment did not read as very NPOV to me but rather as a quite impassioned statement. I have altered it slightly. I thought it was OK to report differing views as long as they were clearly that, not stated as fact. Nevilley
Yeah, no probs. They are unelected and they are a quango though;. user:sjc
Um, what's a quango? -- Zoe
Of course if English Heritage didn't charge admission they would have to make up the shortfall elsewhere - presumably from more money from central government... This needs NPOVing. Secretlondon 23:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Saville Row office has been closed the picture should be removed and a picture of the new headquarters at 1 Waterhouse Square, Holborn, London should be added.
Despite what this banner suggests, the 'frequent changes due to cleanup activity' have yet to materialise...
EdJogg 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
They Agreed To Demolishing There Own Head Quarters In A Conservation Zone to Build Flats
"English Heritage has controversially agreed to allow its own historic London headquarters to be demolished and replaced by flats – despite it being in a conservation area."
Catintheoven 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Whilst this is very interesting, I would comment that any historical site/monument,etc which comes under the jurisdiction of English Heritage prior to the 5th or 6th Centuries, which is now found in the modern country of England, would not be English at all and should be attributed to Celtic/Briton or Roman. For example, how can Stonehenge be under the care of English Heritage when at the time it was built the Englishas a nation did not exist and certainly not on these islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 ( talk) 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
English Heritage is an organisation not a label, just like CADW in Wales. The majority of CADW's major attractions are English castles: that is, built by Anglo-Normans to suppress the Welsh (as opposed to being built by Anglo-Normans to suppress the English). I've never heard any Cornish or Welsh nationalist suggesting they're handed back to the English, or even be described as English. I also take it that you think Historic Scotland should not attribute anything pre 5th century as being Scottish, as the Scotti were still in Ireland at that point? Strange that you've not made the same comment on that Talk page.-- Cenwulf 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that a large amount of CADW's historical sites may well have been built by Anglo Normans but they still lie within the present boundaries of Wales and have had a direct influence on Welsh history and culture similarly, as would the Roman remains throughout Wales not built, perhaps, by the Welsh/Celts directly. Remains of historic significance in the present modern day England prior to there being any Anglo-Norman influence can hardly be described as "English Heritage". Scotland have it right calling their body 'Historic Scotland' as you will find that the definition of historic does not imply anything than promote historic importance with CADW maintaining the historic environment CADW meaning to keep. Neither of these bodies promote that they are the heritage of the country whereas English Heritage does. I suppose there are many Welshmen/Celts who would consider the castles in Wales as part of their heritage as they were built in a country where they remain resident and where their predecessors also lived whereas anything built in the British Isles prior to the 4th or 5th centuries were neither built by Anglo-Normans nor did they have a direct influence on the Anglo-Normans. That English Heritage is an organisation not a label is fine but my dictionary definition of the word heritage I'm afraid infers something other than merely the workings of an organisation and is quite clear in that it means an inheritance. France, Spain, Italy, etc do not claim Celtic sites as part of their inheritance but set it aside as part of the history of the country. Perhaps it's just a problem with semantics on my part but heritage is not something you happen to have in a country you have conquered it's something your historic ancestors had a hand in. I hope you get the point I'm trying to make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 ( talk) 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Then if you were a white American you would be claiming North American Pueblos as your heritage too, through quirks of history, in that case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 ( talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The heritage of Cornwall is Cornish, not English. Time to take our country back, piece by piece! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.108 ( talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I find a couple of elements of the article display a certain point of view:
"free admission to its properties " this implies english heritage has ownership. I think this is not true. I don't know who owns stonehenge but it certainly isn't a quango set up in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.24.90 ( talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
About what happened with the English heritage signs in Cornwall, is it really necessary to have it here? The group involved in the removing of these signs aren’t exactly well known to say, Mebyon Kernow too. -- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, a, now defunct, group of malcontents stirred up an issue which few here in Cornwall support. Serpren ( talk) 03:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is the contents of an email that is typically sent to somebody who points out factually incorrect information in the English Heritage listed buildings website:
"Many thanks for this information. However list descriptions are statutory documents and can only be changed with the approval of the Secretary of State through the issue of an amendment. If you wish to request an amendment you will need to complete an Application Form to Designate a Heritage Asset that can be found on our website at the following link: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/designation/process/online-application-form/.
Kind regards,
Marion Page" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 ( talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Earlier discussions point out that this page is thin on information and very out of date - but so far no-one seems to have tackled it, even though there have been lots of lively discussion most of it is about issues rather than basic stuff.
What is people's opinion if I have a go at adding some text under the following new sections (ie using a similar format to the English National Trust page)?
Any other ideas?
Is there anyone else, or other method that I should use to get opinions from other editors?
I am not proposing to add anything about the properties themselves, as there are already separate pages for most of these. I will also avoid changing anything under the heading 'controversies' until a consensus is reached. Please let me know your thoughts before I spend too much time on this. FGLawson ( talk) 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the start of some suggestions to improve the text on this page, to update content, upgrade it to Wikipedia standards and make it more relevant. This is a work in progress, so please bear with me as I add the correct references, more text etc over the next few 'days' (or weeks). FGLawson ( talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, so FGLawson made the changes. He was WP:BOLD, but under WP:BRD I strongly disagree, so have reverted and now invite discussion. I don't think that what was posted is sufficiently well done to replace what was there. For a number of reasons. Where did the lead section go? Why was the whole controversies section deleted - I hope this isn't an indication of conflict of interest. Rather than a wholesale replacement of the article, which has grown organically through the contributions of many editors, why not improve it section by section. For example, I do like that FGLawson had a history section, so why not start with that? Perhaps take some of the existing info out of the lead, which is perhaps a bit too long, and the stuff from the new version and combine to make a comprehensive history of English Heritage. Then move onto the other stuff. What I would also like to see in any changes that are made is an improvement in referencing style. If the same reference is to be given multiple times then use a name e.g. first time call it in full with <ref name=myreference>this is the reference text....</ref> and then in future simply repeat the reference with <ref name=myreference/>. Also, bare URL's as references are ugly and would be much better replaced with {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite news}} etc. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if the links to Jennifer Page and Anna Keay are removed from this page, on the grounds that no other past chief executives or directors have links, and neither of these two individuals are mentioned in the article?
FGLawson (
talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, does anyone mind if these links are removed as well?:
And finally, is the section called 'Domain' ok to stay, or should it go (or be absorrbed somewhere else)? It seems to duplicate informatation that is written (slightly differently) elsewhere. FGLawson ( talk) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, having read through the page a couple of things strike me about it:
Also, on the talk page, I am unsure if the current Start rating reflects accurately the page's current state. Maybe it could be updated. And finally could an archive be done of old discussions on this page. It is really rather confusing.
I present these ideas for consideration. I am an outsider to this page but know a little about EH and it could be expressed clearer. Thanks. Rafmarham ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rafmarham - These ideas sound sensible. I agree that there is duplication about the domain, purpose and management - this is because when I altered the page earlier I was trying not to get rid of too much! However, now that this text has been up for a while, it would be good to tidy up and re-visit. I'm not convinced about the term 'Operations' for these however, or about merging the membership and volunteering sections.
'Operations' does not convey the public and statutory nature of the organisation, or show how it is different from something like, say, the National Trust. Do you have any alternative suggestions?
Not all members are volunteers, and vice versa. The National Trust page has these under separate sections, and it reads ok.
Which 'see also' were you thinking of removing? FGLawson ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
Re this edit and its reversion by Snowded. "Hitherto" means "to here", "to this point", or (if used in the context of time) "until now". A statement made at the time a particular change is implemented might well say something like "the act dissolves the bodies that have hitherto provided advice"; but if you then change that statement into an account of what happened in the past, not only do you have to modify the tense of the verbs ("dissolves" becomes "dissolved"; "have provided" becomes "had provided"), you also have to change the word "hitherto" to something else. The IP's suggestion "thitherto" (meaning "to there" or "until then") was grammatically correct, but archaic and ugly English. My alternative, "previously", was grammatically correct, colloquial, and (I would have thought) uncontroversial. Leaving the word as "hitherto" is ungrammatical nonsense. GrindtXX ( talk) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on English Heritage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Very bad grammar and syntax in this article. I've done a bit but it needs more work. Deipnosophista ( talk) 09:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservation Worldwide
Thoughts please:
When I started adding heritage-y type govt bodies for England, Wales etc I thought it would be good to provide as many links as possible.
In particular, I adopted a structure where each page for one of these UK agencies had links to:
a. Wiki pages for the other equivalent UK agencies
b. The *external* site of the agency itself
c. The *external* sites of the other UK agenices listed in (a).
---
Looking at it now, I am beginning to feel that (c) is a waste of time and space. If you are on the Enhlish Heritage (EH) page and you want to know about Historic Scotland (SH), you can easily go to the wiki SH page and from there, if you want it, the SH external website is only one click away.
So, I am feeling inclined to remove the (c) bits from these four pages as I do not think they add anything. Comments please? Nevilley
Yes, I think you're right. As long as one can link to the equivalent Wiki pages, one doesn't need the extra external links. I haven't really started adding external links to much of my output, so I'll be able to bear that in mind from now on. User:Renata
OK done that. I think it makes more sense and is more elegant in its current form. Thanks, Nev
which is a direct result of government policy, but only up to a point, Lord Copper. EH are primarily a quango and are largely autonomous in most of their activities. user:sjc
SJC's amendment did not read as very NPOV to me but rather as a quite impassioned statement. I have altered it slightly. I thought it was OK to report differing views as long as they were clearly that, not stated as fact. Nevilley
Yeah, no probs. They are unelected and they are a quango though;. user:sjc
Um, what's a quango? -- Zoe
Of course if English Heritage didn't charge admission they would have to make up the shortfall elsewhere - presumably from more money from central government... This needs NPOVing. Secretlondon 23:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Saville Row office has been closed the picture should be removed and a picture of the new headquarters at 1 Waterhouse Square, Holborn, London should be added.
Despite what this banner suggests, the 'frequent changes due to cleanup activity' have yet to materialise...
EdJogg 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
They Agreed To Demolishing There Own Head Quarters In A Conservation Zone to Build Flats
"English Heritage has controversially agreed to allow its own historic London headquarters to be demolished and replaced by flats – despite it being in a conservation area."
Catintheoven 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Whilst this is very interesting, I would comment that any historical site/monument,etc which comes under the jurisdiction of English Heritage prior to the 5th or 6th Centuries, which is now found in the modern country of England, would not be English at all and should be attributed to Celtic/Briton or Roman. For example, how can Stonehenge be under the care of English Heritage when at the time it was built the Englishas a nation did not exist and certainly not on these islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 ( talk) 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
English Heritage is an organisation not a label, just like CADW in Wales. The majority of CADW's major attractions are English castles: that is, built by Anglo-Normans to suppress the Welsh (as opposed to being built by Anglo-Normans to suppress the English). I've never heard any Cornish or Welsh nationalist suggesting they're handed back to the English, or even be described as English. I also take it that you think Historic Scotland should not attribute anything pre 5th century as being Scottish, as the Scotti were still in Ireland at that point? Strange that you've not made the same comment on that Talk page.-- Cenwulf 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that a large amount of CADW's historical sites may well have been built by Anglo Normans but they still lie within the present boundaries of Wales and have had a direct influence on Welsh history and culture similarly, as would the Roman remains throughout Wales not built, perhaps, by the Welsh/Celts directly. Remains of historic significance in the present modern day England prior to there being any Anglo-Norman influence can hardly be described as "English Heritage". Scotland have it right calling their body 'Historic Scotland' as you will find that the definition of historic does not imply anything than promote historic importance with CADW maintaining the historic environment CADW meaning to keep. Neither of these bodies promote that they are the heritage of the country whereas English Heritage does. I suppose there are many Welshmen/Celts who would consider the castles in Wales as part of their heritage as they were built in a country where they remain resident and where their predecessors also lived whereas anything built in the British Isles prior to the 4th or 5th centuries were neither built by Anglo-Normans nor did they have a direct influence on the Anglo-Normans. That English Heritage is an organisation not a label is fine but my dictionary definition of the word heritage I'm afraid infers something other than merely the workings of an organisation and is quite clear in that it means an inheritance. France, Spain, Italy, etc do not claim Celtic sites as part of their inheritance but set it aside as part of the history of the country. Perhaps it's just a problem with semantics on my part but heritage is not something you happen to have in a country you have conquered it's something your historic ancestors had a hand in. I hope you get the point I'm trying to make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 ( talk) 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Then if you were a white American you would be claiming North American Pueblos as your heritage too, through quirks of history, in that case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 ( talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The heritage of Cornwall is Cornish, not English. Time to take our country back, piece by piece! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.108 ( talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I find a couple of elements of the article display a certain point of view:
"free admission to its properties " this implies english heritage has ownership. I think this is not true. I don't know who owns stonehenge but it certainly isn't a quango set up in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.24.90 ( talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
About what happened with the English heritage signs in Cornwall, is it really necessary to have it here? The group involved in the removing of these signs aren’t exactly well known to say, Mebyon Kernow too. -- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, a, now defunct, group of malcontents stirred up an issue which few here in Cornwall support. Serpren ( talk) 03:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is the contents of an email that is typically sent to somebody who points out factually incorrect information in the English Heritage listed buildings website:
"Many thanks for this information. However list descriptions are statutory documents and can only be changed with the approval of the Secretary of State through the issue of an amendment. If you wish to request an amendment you will need to complete an Application Form to Designate a Heritage Asset that can be found on our website at the following link: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/designation/process/online-application-form/.
Kind regards,
Marion Page" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 ( talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Earlier discussions point out that this page is thin on information and very out of date - but so far no-one seems to have tackled it, even though there have been lots of lively discussion most of it is about issues rather than basic stuff.
What is people's opinion if I have a go at adding some text under the following new sections (ie using a similar format to the English National Trust page)?
Any other ideas?
Is there anyone else, or other method that I should use to get opinions from other editors?
I am not proposing to add anything about the properties themselves, as there are already separate pages for most of these. I will also avoid changing anything under the heading 'controversies' until a consensus is reached. Please let me know your thoughts before I spend too much time on this. FGLawson ( talk) 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the start of some suggestions to improve the text on this page, to update content, upgrade it to Wikipedia standards and make it more relevant. This is a work in progress, so please bear with me as I add the correct references, more text etc over the next few 'days' (or weeks). FGLawson ( talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, so FGLawson made the changes. He was WP:BOLD, but under WP:BRD I strongly disagree, so have reverted and now invite discussion. I don't think that what was posted is sufficiently well done to replace what was there. For a number of reasons. Where did the lead section go? Why was the whole controversies section deleted - I hope this isn't an indication of conflict of interest. Rather than a wholesale replacement of the article, which has grown organically through the contributions of many editors, why not improve it section by section. For example, I do like that FGLawson had a history section, so why not start with that? Perhaps take some of the existing info out of the lead, which is perhaps a bit too long, and the stuff from the new version and combine to make a comprehensive history of English Heritage. Then move onto the other stuff. What I would also like to see in any changes that are made is an improvement in referencing style. If the same reference is to be given multiple times then use a name e.g. first time call it in full with <ref name=myreference>this is the reference text....</ref> and then in future simply repeat the reference with <ref name=myreference/>. Also, bare URL's as references are ugly and would be much better replaced with {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite news}} etc. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if the links to Jennifer Page and Anna Keay are removed from this page, on the grounds that no other past chief executives or directors have links, and neither of these two individuals are mentioned in the article?
FGLawson (
talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, does anyone mind if these links are removed as well?:
And finally, is the section called 'Domain' ok to stay, or should it go (or be absorrbed somewhere else)? It seems to duplicate informatation that is written (slightly differently) elsewhere. FGLawson ( talk) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, having read through the page a couple of things strike me about it:
Also, on the talk page, I am unsure if the current Start rating reflects accurately the page's current state. Maybe it could be updated. And finally could an archive be done of old discussions on this page. It is really rather confusing.
I present these ideas for consideration. I am an outsider to this page but know a little about EH and it could be expressed clearer. Thanks. Rafmarham ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rafmarham - These ideas sound sensible. I agree that there is duplication about the domain, purpose and management - this is because when I altered the page earlier I was trying not to get rid of too much! However, now that this text has been up for a while, it would be good to tidy up and re-visit. I'm not convinced about the term 'Operations' for these however, or about merging the membership and volunteering sections.
'Operations' does not convey the public and statutory nature of the organisation, or show how it is different from something like, say, the National Trust. Do you have any alternative suggestions?
Not all members are volunteers, and vice versa. The National Trust page has these under separate sections, and it reads ok.
Which 'see also' were you thinking of removing? FGLawson ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
Re this edit and its reversion by Snowded. "Hitherto" means "to here", "to this point", or (if used in the context of time) "until now". A statement made at the time a particular change is implemented might well say something like "the act dissolves the bodies that have hitherto provided advice"; but if you then change that statement into an account of what happened in the past, not only do you have to modify the tense of the verbs ("dissolves" becomes "dissolved"; "have provided" becomes "had provided"), you also have to change the word "hitherto" to something else. The IP's suggestion "thitherto" (meaning "to there" or "until then") was grammatically correct, but archaic and ugly English. My alternative, "previously", was grammatically correct, colloquial, and (I would have thought) uncontroversial. Leaving the word as "hitherto" is ungrammatical nonsense. GrindtXX ( talk) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on English Heritage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Very bad grammar and syntax in this article. I've done a bit but it needs more work. Deipnosophista ( talk) 09:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)