Talk:Conservation and restoration of cultural property

message: Hiya, I see the page is getting moved around a bit.  I have no preference on page title, but as a suggestion on wiki-procedures, please be aware that if a move is controversial, it should be proposed first at the talkpage.  If there is disagreement, it should be listed at Requested page moves, and then let an uninvolved third party make the decision on whether or not there is consensus for the move.  Thanks, --Elonka 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: I think it would be useful to have a different picture of a conservation lab that shows more of the equipment used (and perhaps a conservator in action!)...or at least a lab that is cited so it is clear what the picture is of.  Photos of conserved works would also be great. CristaPack (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: So I altered UK to look like the US Section. I think it works better. Will do the other countrues too asap. Also, I put in a ref for NYU... hope thats OK. --Sam Bellamy (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries

message: I am not sure who put the links I hid back...anyone?... but the sections looked weird, so I removed the US links under "external links" and put the link in resources... as it seemed wrong to be having a country by country breakdown, as we've been putting country specific links in the other sections... and I can't see the point in duplication? Thoughts? 
As I said in a comment earlier I hid the links before as I'd never heard of them, and wanted to read through them and see where they best fitted... it seems to me the DOCAM clearly can go in resources... so thats cool. 
However, the animation one seems to be a website for a private conservator(?) and they haven't commented on the discussion so I am not sure why it's there? The site itself includes some good BT/AT stuff and some articles, etc, but is not really relevant to conservation around the world. I haven't hidden it, so its easier to find, but, I am not sure if it should be in the external links, otherwise we would have to include every conservator in the English speaking world, which seems a little daft. We'd have millions of links.  
My suggestion would be to have a "Conservation of Animation Art" link to a stub page on wiki, and to have this as a link off of there... I however cannot write it, as it's not my area of expertise. 
By the way I have changed my handle from SB to my real name. 
--Daniel Cull (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd love to see a Wikipedia article on the Conservation of Animation Art.  It could be linked to this one. RichardMcCoy 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Right now this article is in :Category:Conservation, but as was mentioned above, that's not really appropriate, since that applies more towards nature conservation.  So would an "Art conservation" category be more appropriate?  Or something more general to go into the "Art history" category? --Elonka 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New category

message: Ron Barbagallo has stated that he disagrees about what has been done to this article recently.  
I include his request for editorial assistance because it discusses my decision for removing Art restoration from this article and my decision to remove his personal web page from the Resources for Conservation Professionals section in the External Links.  I think these are important points that should be considered as we move forward on this article so I quote them here in entirety:
:  Below post copied from WP:EA
: == Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_conservation ==
Hello:
I was wondering how I can go about contacting someone who has significant knowledge about Wikipedia and in particular in regard to this posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_conservation
Very recently, a group of conservators who represent a limited part of the field have decided to alter this page to skew it to their particular point of view. They have removed, rather than reorganized the information, and even though Art Conservation is not a Not for Profit Business, they are biased against those who are in Private Practice. They've also removed the restoration page and greatly reduced its presense.
Is there someone I can talk to who is a Wikipedia editor? Someone with greater knowledge than I about what can be listed or not listed on a Wikipedia page. 
My thanks in advance for you help.
Ron Barbagallo
RonBarba@aol.com
Director, AnimationArtConservation.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ron_Barbagallo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 
::I too think that this article could clearly benefit from a lot more assistance, editorial or otherwise; but as a side note I would like to state that the work I've done here and will do here only represents myself.  I am not part of any group, small or otherwise.  A lot of people have worked on this article over the past 7 years.  It is my effort to ground my decisions on the policies of Wikipedia, the published literature (in book form or otherwise) around the topic of conservation, and of course, my understanding of what Art conservation is in a holistic sense.
::I would also like to state that I do not believe I am biased in any way against conservators in private practice.  Of course, there probably could be an article about conservators in private practice that would better state what CIPP is all about.
::See below above for a discussion on the rational for removing Art restoration from Art conservation.  Clearly that article needs work, too.   I know Elonka has had some good suggestions on how to clean that article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) June 14, 2008
I understand that Ron B maybe upset that his link was removed... but I agree it is not relevant to THIS article... it is however RELEVANT and could be included in 
* An article on Conservators in Private Practice [there really should be an article on that... seeing as I believe they are probably higher in number than conservators in museum (at a guess)]
* An article on the conservation of animation art - RonB is clearly an expert in that... and it would be great if he had the time to start an article on that. 
I would but, I would essentially be copying a lot of his work - and I'd rather he decided what was most significant. 
If we all made articles on our respective areas of expertise (as I intend to do asap) then the Art Conservation page would be basically a first point of call.... it would be great for wikipedia to be actually like an encyclopedia of all the conservation fields... I think that would be an exciting project! --Daniel Cull (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Post at Editor Assistance

message: So I've added a bit that was meant to start out as part of a history section, then as perhaps a bit on conservation science...and now I've just named it "The Conservation Laboratory" because it was just a little bit of both.  Maybe the history part should be split apart from the lab instruments bit that I started?  --CristaPack (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Laboratory 

message: * I think we need to delete the section added by RARushfield, not permanently, but just until it can be edited so that it meets wikipedia standards (especially concerned about 'original material'). Much of the information is too much for this page, and would fit better in other pages (some of it is duplicated in other pages already) it is also not referenced, and not linked to other sections of wikipedia. I would suggest we remove it, then use some of the information, and edit it to wikipedia standards.  Thoughts?
* Also, it is only relevant to the US... it doesn't consider any other english language countries such as: Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, UK...etc. Which is a problem for an overview page. We need to be careful of being too USA centric. --Daniel Cull (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation History

message: I re-odered the section so we can more easily find this information. Some key players we should consider. --Daniel Cull (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Key Players

message: How could I have forgotten them! The article (added by RARushfield) that I have since removed from the page by Joyce Hill Stoner has the makings of the beginnings of a bio for them. Gettens is also referenced on Freer Gallery of Art I was thinking that a page could be made about their book... as it is that which is truly significant, and then bios could be included on that page. We could do one of those false link things internal across wikipedia where their names on this age link not to their names, as it wold appear, but to the book page.  I was thinking of just starting a short bio on the main page, until we have more info about them. I actually think we should do that for all the people we are listing, as we go... It may encourage people to take on writing their bios. As it will be obvious they are missing, especially if we include them linked. --Daniel Cull (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gettens and Stout

message: I propose that this article include some information about Sheldon and Caroline Keck, who are generally recognized as two of the most important conservators of the 20th century.
For example, see the recent obituary about Caroline Keck in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/arts/15keck.html?ex=1358312400&en=4c55195b9ef74432&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
--Richard McCoy (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kecks 

message: I think we need to include some information on Friedrich Rathgen, he was the first appointed chemist to a museum position, and wrote the first book of conservation treatments. Which was translated into English years before Plenderleith wrote his... and was quite clearly a major influence on the development of conservation, most specifically archaeological conservation. Although I think Plenderleith could also warrant a mention, as many people still think his book was the first. 
I am thinking we could put this in a new section I will start called "The History of Conservation" or something like that. We could also move some of the info from the laboratory section into a history section, where I think it would work better, as there was some info on fixers that (although now removed) I think could be useful in this section.    
- Mark Gilberg. (1987) Friedrich Rathgen: The Father of Modern Archaeological Conservation. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 105-120 http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-004_2.html  
- Elizabeth Pye. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. James and James. London. --Daniel Cull (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedrich Rathgen

message: I think we need to include the work of Garry Thomson, to do with setting "parameters" for light, UV, Humidity, Temperature. As despite conservators for the most part having now moved beyond these parameters they remain the guideline used as a comparison, as well as his book "The Museum Environment" being hugely significant and really helping to push the whole emphasis towards preventive conservation. However, does anyone have some good biographical information, as I only know a little bit. --Daniel Cull (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Garry Thomson

message: I think it would be worth writing about Harold Plenderleith, I could do it. I like this section but a separate entry for conservation history might be warranted because this might get really long.  Or a separate entry for the key figures and just a link here.  Rose Daly (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plenderleith

message: I was thinking we could include something on Andrew Oddy and the importance of Oddy testing... but, I wasn't sure if it should be a biographical entry, or something on techniques. Any ideas anyone? --Daniel Cull (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Oddy

message: Wow.. Thats some list of dates.... I edited it for some minor formatting issues. I was wondering though if it might deserve a page of it's own. Problem is references for all the details. Has this list been published anywhere? I know its compiled for the Winterthur course, but, would be really good if its been published, as then could easily give it a seperate wikipedia page. 'Key dates in conservation' type thing. Thoughts anyone?  --Daniel Cull (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Key dates

message: I appreciate the varied discussion on conservation ethics.  The articles posted seem pretty minimal.
Further fuel for the debate can be found in Ethics and the Visual Arts, "The Moral Case for Restoring Artworks" by James Janowski.  This essay gives insights into the Purist and Integral Restoration viewpoints.
It is interesting that extremists of the purist view believe that no new materials should be added and that it is better to let the piece decay rather than repair in any way.  "Integral Restoration seeks to return the work to its pre-damaged condition...even though at least some of the material used to do so is not material from the original work." James Janowski Goldfish3 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Ethics 

message: There is a confusing mess of redirects here.  It is particularly weird that the primary article name is Conservation-restoration but that the primary talk page is Talk:Art conservation.  Richard McCoy raised the point last September that the article was moved to a hyphenated page name without any discussion or background.
I do not feel qualified to comment on whether conservation and restoration belong in the same article, but as long as they currently are, I propose that the canonical title for this article and its talk page should be Art conservation and restoration and Talk:Art conservation and restoration, and all redirects should be pointed there.
Please comment.  If I have not heard objections by Monday, April 27, I will begin making those changes (enlisting an admin's help if necessary to untangle the mess). Tim Pierce (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard - I'm happy to take part in a deeper discussion about the appropriate primary name for this article, and I'm not at all wedded to it being Art conservation and restoration.  I do, however, feel strongly that the primary talk page and primary article page should share the same name.  If the official name for this article is to be Conservation-restoration then the discussion should live at Talk:Conservation-restoration.  If the primary discussion page lives at Talk:Art conservation then it should accompany an article named Art conservation which is not a redirect to something else. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  article naming 

message: On Tuesday I participated in a Museums and the Web workshop with members of the Wikimedia Foundation and 50 or so global leaders in the museum web community.  Here’s a link to the Workshop.
An idea that surfaced from this workshop is the creation of 3 keys lists within Wikipedia about from what and how art is made, and the materials used to conserve-restore it.  Here are the 3 lists:
1) Wikipedia:List_of_100_art_materials_every_encyclopedia_should_have
2) Wikipedia:List_of_100_art_techniques_every_English_encyclopedia_should_have
3) Wikipedia:List_of_100_conservation-restoration_materials_every_encyclopedia_should_have
These lists would not only be used to identify the most important 100 topics, they would be used to determine what Wikipedia articles currently exist about them and therefore identify work that needs to be done within Wikipedia to create or improve them.  Ideally, there should be a high-quality articles in Wikipedia about each topic.
Clearly these lists could soon grow way beyond 100 items, but we have to start somewhere.  I see this as a kind of first step for the community to begin thinking about ways in which we can add good information to Wikipedia that is useful to the cultural sector. 
I think the easiest way to get the entries for this list would be to scan some sets of museum collection databases, or somehow assess Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online (AAT) and the Conservation & Art Material Encyclopedia Online (CAMEO) to determine the entries quasi empirically, or at least in a mildly systematic way (anybody have any hot tips on how to do that, or perhaps a big magic wand?).  I can't figure out how to make that happen, so it seems it will have to be done by hand. 
Also, along the way there will need to be something like consensus as to what is included in these lists (and what’s not).
Thanks, --Richard McCoy (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wikipedia Lists of 100 Project

message: I have recently split the Athens Charter article into two. The previous article was confusing in that it lumped two completely different topics together. I see that there is reference in the table to the 1933 CIAM Athens Charter, but this was a document written by Modernist architects as a manifesto for urban planning. As such it may not be an appropriate topic for this site! Kenchikuben (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Athens Charter

message: Might the section that covers international cultural property charters be more appropriate to the page "Cultural Heritage", as that page covers the broad ideas of conservation/preservation, as opposed to the physical-materials science intensive conservation-restoration article? If there is no objection, I will move it there. Morgan Riley (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "cultural heritage charters" to "cultural heritage" page? 

message: I see that Good ol' Factory has started to move some of the associated pages that relate to this article. With this, is there a way that you can also go and fix all of the now misused terms that link back to this article.  Is there an automated way to do this?  Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Misused could be rather strong of a statement.  Generally when a page is moved, editors don't go through and change all references to an article.  Redirects are cheap and leaving them causes no harm.  When the redirects are for natural terms that are in common use, there is generally no reason to change them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have put "misused" in quotes. I would have thought that because you fought so hard for the changes alongside User:Mike Selinker and User:Good Olfactory, you would have taken responsibility for the various messes that now exist because of them. Only Good OlFactory has gone back and redressed some of the now confusing and messy details of your changes. Frankly it's disappointing, but not surprising, to see your flip attitute and unwillingness to clean up the mess you've started.  So it goes. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try and go easy on other editors. Everyone here is a volunteer and obviously we each have only a limited amount of time and energy. For each of us, how we prioritize the various work we do on Wikipedia is really our own business. Other users may also have different views on whether what exists is or is not a "mess" and how much further work is required, so we need to avoid projecting our own views on others and avoid assuming that they are thinking what you are thinking about any given topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that absent a new discussion, it would have no effect on that terminology. The nominator's nominating statement above includes the comment: "while conservator-restorer is a legitimate term for a person in this field, 'conservation-restoration' is far less common". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I've never heard this term used before.  What gives, and what's the rational? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi RichardMcCoy. Thanks for talking. I see there has been discussion before about the name and scope of this article. From a broad perspective, the article has evolved away from simply "Art conservation" (a topic that is now notably absent in Wikipedia), to "Conservation-restoration" (a term not common in the literature, and arguably poor English). Let's take a fresh look. From a broad perspective the term "conservation" needs disambiguation from the most common use as applied to environment and natural resources. As far as I can determine the most common terms in the profession are "conservation" and "preservation" (distinguished mostly between British and American usage, but also by certain nuances and historical use like "textile preservation" and "art conservation", and always with a qualifier like "conservation of cultural heritage", "art conservation", "cultural heritage conservation", and often together with the term "restoration", sometimes "reconstruction", as is used in a recent textbook). The choice between "conservation", "preservation", "conservation and restoration", etc. and the need for a qualifier about "culture" or "cultural heritage" is clear in terms of the use of the term beyond just art. Adding the qualifier "cultural" for "Cultural conservation" keeps it simple; although better alternatives might be "Conservation (cultural)", "Conservation (cultural heritage)", "Conservation of cultural heritage", or "Cultural heritage conservation", or back to "Art conservation". What do you recommend? TheProfessor (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Conservation-restoration is pretty commonplace around artifacts, rather than flat art. Conservation alone (as it's never presented with the disambigautor) looks far too much like environmental conservation or broader socio-cultural conservation, rather than the type of technical work carried out by conservators, as described here. I'd move it back. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input.  Let's see if we get more discussion. TheProfessor (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will also have to deal with all of the categories and related articles around this subject should you stay with this move.  In my opinion, this article is a mess that others have identified before (outside of Wikipedia), but it's such a mess no one has really wanted to step up and fix it.  --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, it may be simplest to move the article back to Conservation-restoration.  My preference would be to settle on a name that establishes a foundation for Wikipedia's treatment, which needs to be done from a bigger picture of related articles. This is a bit of a tangle both in terms of terminology and scope.  In reading back through past discussion and perusing some of the literature (concerning art conservation, "conservation" with respect to cultural heritage, collection care, etc.), a good overall structure gets a bit messy, though I do see several options for what might provide be a good path forward.  First, I think Wikipedia needs a clean article about Art conservation (which as I understand is where this article started).  This could either be the more extensive article, given this is a big field, or a relatively small article that provides historical context and an overview.  Second, Wikipedia needs an article about "Conservation of cultural heritage" (some alternative names include "Conservation (cultural heritage)" or "Conservation-restoration", or "Conservation and restoration (cultural heritage)", etc.) that focuses on the technical field and serves as a kind of umbrella for untangling the various terminology and approaches, so as to provide a good framework with respect to accessing related Wikipedia articles.  TheProfessor (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a mess in the professional field so it's not surprising that it's a mess here.  There really needs to be a conversation about this in the conservation community ... but I doubt that it's much on their radar. 
--RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the name change to "Cultural conservation."? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Conservation-restoration of cultural 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714201324/http://www.nahste.ac.uk/isaar/GB_0237_NAHSTE_P1161.html to http://www.nahste.ac.uk/isaar/GB_0237_NAHSTE_P1161.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928085255/http://www.international.icomos.org/e_floren.htm to http://www.international.icomos.org/e_floren.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the edit and set the parameter to true...after I got mixed up, reverted the edit, and then reinstated it. Oops. Carry on, robot. -Michellecornelison (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looks like this talk page has been quiet for a couple years. This is my first time looking closely at this article, and I'm interested in helping out. There's a lot of work to be done, but the first huge red flag to me is the Conservators in private practice that provide resources section of the External Links. My view is that this needs to be deleted, pronto. Every single conservator in private practice can provide "resources." That's what they do. We can't list them all here, so we shouldn't list only a few. If a conservator in private practice has made highly notable contributions to the field, that should be in the body of the article and it should be cited. I'd delete this right away but I think one of the people on this list was an editor involved on the talk page at some point, right? (It doesn't appear that WP:ADV has been brought up, but it should be.) It seems like this was a pretty touchy subject, but that was 8 years ago, so I'm just checking in to see who's still kicking around in here. Full disclosure: I'm in grad school for conservation (but my motivation here is making Wikipedia better). Cheers, Michellecornelison (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody out there? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Conservation-restoration of cultural 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613122322/http://www.apva.org/ to http://www.apva.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706210448/http://www.international.icomos.org/e_venice.htm to http://www.international.icomos.org/e_venice.htm
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150314024203/http%3A//www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid%3D97%26articleid%3D1503 to http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus as to what is the best title for the article, after 3 weeks.   (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservation and restoration of cultural property →  – The shortest and common name of the topic of this article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 October 2021 

message: Regarding this topic, I altered the text I proposed before, including a broader range of references. You can take a look at a more complete draft below. I am indeed a member of IIC, but this is a single initiative from which I will not have any return. I hope this makes it possible to publish. The goal is to bring the issue of sustainability to the page.
Proposal: 
: For Ethics:
: For Practice:
--Ana Tourais (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note I've lent a hand by adding  and formatting the references. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested edit