Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Europe

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, the US has 20 sites, much more than an eleventh of 33 . Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Germany

message: 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)
thread_title: UK list

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kazakhstan in the list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aegean Islands in Asia?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think Chouji's approach is a very sensible one. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Kazakhstan, Israel, Other Countries that "Aren't in Europe" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Jerusalem

message: 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  is probably the best person to talk to. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sortable List

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They definitely look more fitting on the specific country articles. Puchiwonga (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page is Ugly

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Albania 

message: 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)
thread_title:  North America

message: This page badly needs formatting to cut out all the empty spaces. --Mallard16 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page formatting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sites in Danger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In case of expansion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: i think there is a mistake here. פארוק (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fine, so where is the mistake? bamse (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Israel is in [[Western Asia]] 

message: 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.    Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lake Ohrid]], Albanian part