Talk:English Heritage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
|
Needs to fixed asap
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Old Discussions
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)
- Agreed. adamsan 17:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Saville Row Office
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.
[edit] Cleanup Taskforce
|
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
|
Needs to fixed asap
|
|
Despite what this banner suggests, the 'frequent changes due to cleanup activity' have yet to materialise...
-
- ...however I have made a start by organising this Talk page!
EdJogg 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Headquater Controversy
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)
[edit] Controversy of English Heritage Sites in Cornwall
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)
