text:
Talk:English Heritage

Old Discussions
See also: 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

It's a quango... user:sjc

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)

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.

Cleanup Taskforce
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)

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."

http://www.rics.org/Property/Commercialproperty/Commercialpropertydevelopment/heritage_hq_230306.html

Catintheoven 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

 * If you state that the word heritage clearly refers to an inheritance, then the term English Heritage is correct for the organisation, and for Stonehenge. Stonehenge is in England - and has been inherited - it has been passed down by the quirks of history, through various tribes, groups, monarchs, private owners etc to the present generation.  The English as we define them today may not have built Stonehenge, but they have inherited it and therefore the title "English heritage" is more than appropriate.

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)

POV?
I find a couple of elements of the article display a certain point of view:
 * "English Heritage is thus an unelected quango with a considerable degree of power and access to public money derived from taxation". All true, but it has already been stated a couple of times that it is a non-departmental public body. Quango tends to be used in a dismissive sense. Unelected quango seems to be pure needle.

 * Agreed - rv'ed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 * "In contrast, such policy is common for similar organisations, such as the National Trust." Prior sentences establish it has a membership which cannot steer its work. I question why a comparison is made at all, and in any event find the comparison bogus simply for the reason that NDPBs do not tend to be membership controlled organisations by their very nature. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed - modified those and other sentences to de-POV and add relevant material. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"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)

A very small incident…
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)

Inaccurate or Misleading Information on Its Listed Buildings Website - here is the information that justifies the edit: send and email address and I will forward.
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)

 * Thanks for taking this discussion to the talk page. First of all, posting a private email on Wikipedia, either in the article or in a talk page, is very much frowned upon. This is a general rule of net etiquette as well (e.g.). As such, your edit is problematic because it basically consists of a public posting of a private email.
 * Secondly, I'm not really seeing the controversy here. Their website, reasonably enough, lists information as recorded in the government's official records. In order to change those records, approval of the Secretary of State is apparently required. As such, they cannot correct their records solely on the basis of an email from a citizen. While this may be time consuming and/or burdensome, it seems like a fairly normal bureaucratic policy, and I don't see how it's so controversial or deserving of such offense.
 * Finally, and this is the big one, information on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by citations to reliable sources. Your edit cites none. You assert that there is "misleading or inaccurate information" on their website, but there is no citation for this claim, let alone one from a reliable source. Nor do you cite a source for the fact that they are not "particularly interested" in resolving such inaccuracies: they could be quite interested but unable to do so because of the relevant laws. If a notable newspaper or periodical ran a story about inaccuracies in the records of English Heritage, this could quite likely be notable, but as it stands, it's simply you trying to use Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT, which is not what Wikipedia is for.
 * I hope this clarifies things. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * You are fudging and I suspect you are involved in English Heritage in some way. I am simply saying that the organisation is not interested in correcting inaccurate information in its website. I don't know WHY that might be: all I am saying is that is the case. If they (maybe you?) are justified in not correcting mistakes, possibly for legal reasons, then edit the article and state why. It would in no way detract from my assertion that they are not 'particularly interested' in correcting inaccuracies. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. Do not censor edits simply because you don't agree with them. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, that is the whole point of it. Editors are not obliged to start a debate in the discussion page. However, of course, anybody can initiate a debate in the discussion page in response to an edit or for any other reason. Wikipedia is about facts and I have stated a fact, whether you like it or not. I hope this clarifies things for you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not involved with English Heritage in any way, [so you say] and if you care to look through my Wikipedia contribution history [can't be arsed to (just like english heritage in fixing their mistakes) and it would mean nothing anyway], you can see that this is (to the best of my recollection [crap and you know it]), the first time I've had any involvement with this article [more crap]. In fact, I'm many thousand miles away. Nor am I really sure what fudging is [look in a good dictionary]. I made a good faith argument with reference to Wikipedia policies, and you come back at me by claiming I'm somehow part of English Heritage instead of addressing any of my points [what points?].
 * You state that "Wikipedia is about facts and I have stated a fact, whether you like it or not." Actually, that's not a very good definition of what we're [who is 'we'? you think you're wikipedia? LOL] about. See Five_pillars [see it yourself and quote it] for the core foundations of the community. You'll see that neutrality and verifiability are key policies here. The Verifiability policy states in its introduction: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." To do this, information needs to be attributable to a reliable published source [quoted an english heritatge email} (see WP:RS [why don't you quote it?] for information on what constitutes a reliable source). Your edits do not satisfy this criteria: your claims are based on your original research [on a real incident actually, which is verifiable] rather than any sort of published source [published in an email from EH]. As such, they are not presently suitable for inclusion [in your very humble opinion]. Again, should reliable newspapers or periodicals publish stories on inaccuracies in English Heritage's records, including that information in this article could well make a great deal of sense [since when are they reliable LOL]. If you can provide reliable sources [I did] that back up this information, I'd be happy [you would not be happy because all you are interested in is the status quo] to take a look and that would give us a great basis to write from, but I see no evidence [you don't want to, that's why] that any such citations exist at this time.
 * Finally, there's the issue of undue weight. That are many things that are true facts about English Heritage, yet they do not belong in this article because they are not prominent enough to be included [prominence has nothing to do with it]. The article mentions the chief executive, but not the names of the secretarial staff; it mentions the group's total expenses for the year, but not how much is spent on janitorial [ah, maybe you're american] supplies; you get the point... [yes I do - you're a complete twat] On Wikipedia, "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" (WP:NPOV). A "controversy" in this article should be represented roughly in proportion to the significance of the controversy [tautological crap). A major scandal that makes the front pages of newspapers and leads to public discussion is worthy of more coverage in the article than an unpopular decision that receives minor attention [who are you to determine that?]. Your edit, however gives about the same weight to this issue as the "English Heritage sites in Cornwall" case: an event that received multiple mentions in the BBC and other media outlets. In this case, we have zero reliable sources [an email from EH is a reliable source] (in fact, we have no sources besides yourself [see before LOL]) that tell us that this "controversy" has received any public attention. If an event is of little significance [in only your opinion], it would give that event undue weight to include it in the article, but that's exactly what you want to do here.
 * Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then what is 'history'? Presumably it has always had a good deal to do with 'politics'. I take an interest in history but I am not a politician and I may be taking a wrong approach but I consider English Heritage to be currently radically out of order from an historical point of view in regard to war memorials. I can give examples and explanation of this complete indifference existing presumably at a governmental level if anyone is interested (I think it is a problem now and will be one in the future, because nobody or very few people are perhaps going to have any idea what the First World War memorials were actually supposed to be about, given in particular the ridiculolus addition of the Second World War to their purposes, this being admittedly something with which English Heritage itself was not directly involved since at the time it did not exist).
 * In conclusion, I suggest that this is in fact a Scottish and a European issue, not simply related to this country, England. Peter Judge  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.134.83 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean up and improvements to this page
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)?
 * history of the organisation
 * purpose and remit (eg it would be nice to include something about planning policy and how the listed building process operates)
 * Governance inc committees
 * Funding inc links to the most recent accounts
 * Membership
 * Volunteering
 * Heritage at risk survey

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)

Improvements to English Heritage page
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)

 * Hi, I've moved your additions to your sandbox here as it would not really be appropriate to have an entire article draft taking up the talk page. My advice would be to be bold and just incorporate into the existing article, people will soon complain if they disagree with you, and then you can debate contentious issues on the talk page.  Hope this is okay.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 27 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   and then in future simply repeat the reference with  . Also, bare URL's as references are ugly and would be much better replaced with cite web, cite journal, cite news etc. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about not deleting the controversies section - if anything, we could perhaps add one or two things to that, including the various permutations of the Stonehenge story under EH management. Could we perhaps review some of the proposed changes in slices? Some of them looked quite useful. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some good bits, I agree, but it was all to much to swallow in one go. Your suggestion is a good one. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all your comments! The advice was to be bold - so I was! I had hoped that by posting things in advance I might have had some suggestions earlier... but being bold certainly got a response! Just let me know or show me how to improve the referencing - I know that the way I have done it is very clumsy, but I couldn't work out from the guidance how to make it better and some other sites that I used for comparison were pretty clumsy too.

 * I was in several minds about keeping the 'controvery' section - as its presence is, in itself, controversial. Because of the earlier talk comments about most of the content here being out of date and occasionally POV/tangental - and because the other heritage and charity organisations (ie Cadw, Historic Scotland, National Trust) do not contain such a section, it didn't seem such a big deal. Anyway, as Jamesinderbyshire has pointed out, there are other more recent (and properly controversial) controversies, although many of these are already dealt with elsewhere such as on the Stonehenge pages themselves.

 * With regards to the lead section, I was trying not to repeat things again later on in the article. All the information in the 'lead' is within the other sections. FGLawson (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The EH has sometimes been critiqued as an organisation, particularly historically for its handling of Stonehenge and so there is merit in either having a separate controversies section or else including it - the problem with always devolving to articles lower down the food chain is that it then takes it away from the relevant fact that it is EH as an organisation determining policy and not just some action taking place at, for example, the Stonehenge level. We used to have more on that here - I see it's been deleted - will look at restoring where useful. There are controversies about the NT as well and there have been attempts to add it in the past. I suspect the others are just too small to come to notice much. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 * For the lead section, see WP:LEAD, which should explain everything you need to know. In short it is an introduction and summary of the key points in the article - so by its very nature it will replicated content that exists (in more depth) later in the article. So, how do you want to proceed? We want to see the article improved and so will support you in making those changes. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob: incorporate sections from your draft one at a time (or relevant excerpts), and as there seem to be a few people's eyes here, we can see how we get along, and get a good article working here. The "History" section would seem an appropriate place to start...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 * With hindsight, perhaps it was a mistake to move all the proposals into the sandbox rather than have them on the talk pages for disucssion. The reason why I trailed the new heading ideas and then put all the new text onto the Talk page was to avoid such a 'throw out baby with bathwater' reaction. No wonder new editors are discouraged when faced with a barrage of Wiki bureaucracy see WP:BITE. Doesn't WP:BRD come into play when "where seeking consensus would be difficult" and "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes"?

 * However, let us move forwards in a positive fashion. I propose that:
 * - I will work on the referencing suggestions (which were very usfeul thankyou)in the sandbox
 * - But rather than start with the 'History' section, (which is the longest and therefore hardest to digest), I start instead with the 'Membership'; 'Volunteering' and 'Funding' sections. These are short, self-contained and contain mostly new, rather than revised, information.
 * - Shall I put these onto 'Talk' or into the article?

 * By the way, I don't think that English Heritage 'determines policy' as Jamesinderbyshire says - surely as a quango it can't do that because setting policy is the role of Government? I am assuming that you mean planning policy here by the way. It's remit says that is is a consultee, (admittedly a big one), but other groups in the voluntary sector such as the National Trust, conservation bodies, religious groups etc and even the EU are also involved. FGLawson (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if you think you have been bitten, that wasn't the intention. However, such a radical change combined with the deletion of a controversy section and your obvious knowledge of the organisation raised the question about conflict of interest - hence my post to your talk page. Your suggestion on the three smaller sections is a good one. I don't see any problem with you putting them straight onto the page. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm also sorry if you felt bitten, that wasn't my intention either. I was aiming to encourage you to be bold and make the changes yourself.  It seemed that you had some good proposals, but you were seeking consensus for each and every one, and I don't think you'd ever have found anyone to do that.  I stand by my moving your proposals to the sandbox to preserve them for these reasons.  I think the reason all your changes were reverted was that they were all made at once, and took out some information that was already in place.  Again, I'd suggest making them one by one, so the WP:BRD can come into play for each change.  And again, I'd agree with Bob and encourage you to merge and incorporate your proposals into the existing article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 6 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?:
 * 'List of conservation topics' (as it is a list of articles relating to conservation biology and conservation of the natural environment, and not to heritage)
 * 'Heritage Film' (as it is a link to 20th centuary British cinema, so the relevance is somewhat tangental)FGLawson (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Suggestions
Hi, having read through the page a couple of things strike me about it:
 * The sections are too small and could easily be merged. For example, could the 'Domain', 'Purpose and Remit' and 'How English Heritage is run' sections be merged into one 'Operation' section? Equally, is there any sections that the 'Membership' and 'Volunteering' sections be merged into or be made sub sections of?
 * The page is very confused and repeats points such as who EH are and what purpose they play. Some of these sentences could be removed and made clearer.
 * There seemed to be a lot of 'See also' links. Should these be reduced?

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).

"Hitherto"
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)
 * I would have thought that hitherto in use now incorporated thitherto, but if you really want previously I'm not going to get worked up about it Snowded TALK 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Changed. GrindtXX (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817201114/http://heritagelaw.org/AMA-1882- to http://heritagelaw.org/AMA-1882-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013015419/http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk:80/MP-calls-Cornish-Heritage-replace-English-body/story-13529395-detail/story.html to http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/MP-calls-Cornish-Heritage-replace-English-body/story-13529395-detail/story.html#axzz2Nnp3ogIv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318034922/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk:80/news/stonehenge_regret_photography_ban_update_news_303071.html to http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/stonehenge_regret_photography_ban_update_news_303071.html

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) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Poor drafting
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)

title: Talk:English Heritage


text:
Flag of the Soviet Union

The State Flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Госуда́рственный флаг Сою́за Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик ), or simply the Soviet flag (Сове́тский флаг ), was a red banner with two communist symbols displayed in the canton: a gold hammer and sickle topped off by a red five-point star bordered in gold. The flag's design and symbolism are derived from several sources, but emerged during the Russian Revolution. It has also come to serve as the standard symbol representing communism as a whole, recognized as such in international circles, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The plain red flag, which was a traditional revolutionary symbol long before 1917, was incorporated into the Soviet flag to pay tribute to the international aspect of the workers' revolution. On the other hand, the unique hammer-and-sickle design was a modern industrial touch adopted from the Russian Revolution; it represented the "victorious and enduring revolutionary alliance" by unifying the hammer (i.e., workers) and the sickle (i.e., peasants). The gold-bordered five-point star situated above the hammer and sickle was a representation of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The first flag was adopted in December 1922. In 1923, 1924, 1936 and 1955, statutes were adopted that resulted in adjustments to the hammer's handle length and the sickle's shape. In 1980, an amendment was made to the 1955 decree that removed the hammer and sickle displayed on the flag's reverse side, though the legal description remained completely unchanged. The design of the 1955 Soviet flag served as the basis for all of the flags of the Union Republics.

Symbolism and design
The flag of the Soviet Union consisted of a plain red flag with a gold hammer crossed with a gold sickle placed beneath a gold-bordered red star. This symbol is in the upper left canton of the red flag.

The colour red honours the red flag of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the red star and hammer and sickle are symbols of communism and socialism.

The hammer symbolises urban industrial workers while the sickle symbolises agricultural workers (peasants)—who together, as the Proletarian class, form the state. The red star represents the Communist Party, and its position over the hammer and sickle symbolises its leading role in socialist society to unify and enlighten the workers and peasants in the building of communism.

The flag's design was legislated in 1955, which gave a clear way to define and create the flag. This resulted in a change of the hammer's handle length and the shape of the sickle. The adopted statute stated that:
 * 1) The ratio of width to length of the flag is 1:2.
 * 2) The hammer and sickle are in a square with sides equal to $1/undefined$ of the flag's height. The sharp tip of the sickle lies in the center of the upper side of the square, and the handles of the hammer and sickle rest in the bottom corners of the square. The length of the hammer and its handle is $3/4$ of the square diagonal.
 * 3) The five-pointed star is inscribed into a circle with a diameter of $1/undefined$ of the flag's height, the circle being tangent to the upper side of the square.
 * 4) The distance of the vertical axis of the star, hammer and sickle from the hoist is $1/undefined$ of the flag's height. The distance from the upper side of the flag to the center of the star is $1/undefined$ of the flag's height.

Officially since 1980, the reverse side of the flag was a plain red field without the hammer and sickle. In practice, however, this was very commonly disregarded by flag makers as it was far easier and less costly to simply print the flag through and through, with the obverse design mirrored on the reverse. It was also common to see the reverse of the flag bear the hammer and sickle in the obverse formation. An example of the flag demonstrating its de jure status as being only one-sided is that of the Soviet flag atop the Moscow Kremlin which bore the single-side official design.

For vertical display, the flag was made with the distinct difference of having the hammer and sickle rotated 90 degrees in order to compensate for the change in dimensions. Although common in official practice, a typical flag owner would simply turn a standard design flag 90 degrees to the right and hang it by the hoist (not flipped like the US flag).

History
During the establishment of the Russian Soviet Republic, Vladimir Lenin and his followers had considered the inclusion of a sword symbol in addition to the hammer and sickle as part of the state seal on which the flag was eventually based. The idea was dismissed as too visually aggressive, with Lenin apparently affirming, "A sword is not one of our symbols."

The first official flag was adopted in December 1922 at the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR. It was agreed that the red banner "was transformed from the symbol of the Party to the symbol of a state, and around that flag gathered the peoples of the soviet republics to unite into one state — the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". On 30 December 1922, the Congress adopted a Declaration and Agreement on the establishment of the USSR. Article 22 of the Agreement states: "The USSR has a flag, coat of arms and a state seal." The description of the first flag was given in the 1924 Soviet Constitution, accepted in the second session of the executive committee (CIK) of the USSR on 6 July 1923. The text of article 71 states: "The state flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics consists of a red or scarlet field with the state's coat of arms." It was ordered with the unusual ratio of 4:1 in proportion and consisted of a red flag with the state coat of arms in the center. However, such a flag was never mass-produced. This flag was the official flag for four months, and was replaced as the official flag by the more familiar hammer and sickle design during the third session of the CIK of the USSR on 12 November 1923.

In the third session of the CIK of the USSR, the description of Soviet flag in the Constitution was changed, and article 71 was edited to read: "The state flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics consists of a red or scarlet field, and in the canton a golden sickle and hammer, and a red five-pointed star bordered in gold above them. The ratio of width to length is 1:2." On 19 August 1955, the Statute on the State Flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was adopted by a decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. This resulted in a change of the hammer's handle length and the shape of the sickle. On 15 August 1980, a new edition of the Statute on the State Flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was adopted, which did not make any changes to the flag's description aside from removing the hammer and sickle on the reverse side of the flag. From this point on, the flag stayed in use with this design until the disintegration of the USSR on 26 December 1991, at which time it ceased to be a national flag and replaced by national flags of the post-Soviet republics.

On 15 April 1996 Boris Yeltsin signed a presidential decree giving the Soviet flag (called the Victory Banner, after the banner that was raised above the Reichstag on 1 May 1945) status similar to that of the national flag. The hammer and sickle were removed from the flag, leaving only the star, but they were reinstated later. On certain holidays, the Victory Banner is flown along with the Russian flag.

Contemporary usage
In current times, the Soviet national flag (and similar flags) are widely used by those on the political far left, most often by those who support Marxism–Leninism, although the earlier (pre-Stalinist) flags are occasionally used by Trotskyists and those on the modern communist left.

The Soviet flag is also actively promoted in Russia as a symbol of nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Various politicians frequently utilize it as a symbol of the superpower status Russia lost in 1991.

Amidst the backdrop of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation proposed to the State Duma the adoption of the Soviet flag as the official flag of Russia on April 19, 2022. The use of Soviet symbols including its flag became very extensive by invading Russian forces over the course of the war along with the letter "Z".

On June 17, 2023, during the celebration for the 300th anniversary of Saint Petersburg, the flags of the Russian Empire (Black-yellow-white flag), Soviet Union and Russian Federation raised simultaneously at the Gulf of Finland.

Derived flags
The flags of the Soviet republics that constituted the USSR and the Victory Banner were all defaced or modified versions of the Soviet flag.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Flag of the Soviet Union


text:
Flag of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

The penultimate USSR-era flag was adopted by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) in 1954 and used until 1991. The flag of the Russian SFSR was a defacement of the flag of the USSR. The constitution stipulated:

"The state flag of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) presents itself as a red, rectangular sheet with a light-blue stripe at the pole extending all the width [read height] which constitutes one eighth length of the flag."

The symbol of the hammer and sickle represented the working class; more specifically, the hammer represented the urban industrial workers and the sickle represented the rural and agricultural peasants. The red star represented the Communist Party and Communism. The red of the flag represented revolution in general and the Russian Revolution in particular. The blue stripe symbolized the wide Russian skies and the waters of its seas and rivers.

History
The first flag of the Russian SFSR, adopted on 14 April 1918, was a flag showing the full name of the recently created Soviet republic before the then imminent Russian spelling reform. Its ratio was unspecified.

From June 1918, the flag was red with the gold Cyrillic characters РСФСР (RSFSR) in the top-left corner, in a traditional Vyaz' style of ornamental Cyrillic calligraphy.

From 1920, the characters were redesigned as described by the Russian Constitution of 1925. However, this flag was oftentimes not used, with the 1918 flag being used until 1937.

In February 1947, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a resolution urging the Soviet republics to adopt new flags. The design was suggested to be based on the state flag of the USSR, as to indicate the idea of the republic within the union, and to include colors and national ornaments to express the geographical, national, historical and cultural characteristics of each republic. In the Russian SFSR, the chairman of the Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet opened the first meeting the next month to redesign the national flag.

On 9 January 1954, the new national flag of the RSFSR was approved by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. The flag was designed by artist Valentin Petrovich Viktorov. On 2 June 1954, the description of the flag was included in the Constitution of the RSFSR.

After the attempted coup of 1991, Boris Yeltsin, the president of the Russian SFSR adopted a resolution that the imperial tricolor flag of the Russian Empire would be the flag of RSFSR. On 22 August 1991 the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR decided:

"Prior to the establishment of the new state symbol of the Russian Federation, the historical flag of Russia – the flag with equal horizontal white, azure, scarlet stripes should be regarded as the official national flag of the Russian Federation."

It was first hoisted at 12:00 pm on 22 August 1991 at the White House. A tricolor with the hammer and sickle on the centre was also later proposed.

On 1 November 1991, the Constitution of the RSFSR was amended to adopt the white-azure-scarlet flag as the official national flag.

Proposed flag of the Russian SFSR
Since the first meeting for creating new national flag of the RFSFR in March 1947, some proposals were sent to the authority. The graphic artist create a proposal to add white and blue horizontal stripes at the bottom, both two stripes took $1/6$ of the flag's height. His proposal was submitted to the Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Alexander Gorkin in June 1948 and again to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR Boris Chernousov in December 1949, but was not approved.

Mikhail Rodionov also created another proposal for the state flag of the RSFSR. It consisted of a traditional tricolour flag and a hammer and a sickle in the middle of the flag. Because of his proposal, he was accused of nationalism and anti-Sovietism in 1950, at the Leningrad affair case.

Other Russian SFSR flags
The banner of the republic was a 1:1 ratio red flag with gold fringe, commonly used in ceremonies. The banner was also used for the first inauguration of Boris Yeltsin as President of the Russian SFSR on 10 July 1991.

Flags of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics
Flags of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics of RSFSR were defacements of the 1954 flag of RSFSR, with texts or acronyms of the name of the republic in official languages.


text:
Talk:Tree structure

Hierarchy

 * I feel tree structure and hierarchical tree structure are the more obvious candidates, as they both describe their subject in similar terms, whereas tree data structure adds 'data' to the equation.
 * But I know too little about the use of tree structures in communications and computer science to decide whether these are three distinct articles. I do feel that at least the 'tree structure' article should be less nerdy and more accessible. Genealogists use tree structures too. Also I currently miss information on the naming of elements and relations in tree structures (but perhaps I should look at the general articles on structure for this). branko
 * The term "tree" implies a hierarchy, so "hierarchical" is redundant, I think. Plus "Tree structure" is the simplest name, so that's a good thing too. -- Tarquin
 * I think most people probably think about the things outside with bark that grow in soil, when they here the word tree. Also it's possible to think of a tree as a sort of graph: I'd tentatively say the meaning is only hierarchical when you put hierarchical data in it. Despite that I think hierarchical is a good way of describing it, being such a common usage. Oligomous (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to see Wikipedia a concept network, where each article as explains and documents a single "concept" with links to related concepts. This could be conceived of as the ultimate encyclopedia, also useful for AI (Artificial Intelligence) R&D and as a way to achieve continuous and up-to-date man-machine knowledge transfer (could work both ways - teamwork let's hope :). Therefore I think the concept of "Tree Structure" can be seen as broader than as a 'Graphical Representation'. In fact I feel the phrase could be agreed to cover the whole concept of "Tree Structure" as it could be used most broadly. I do agree that the concept of "Tree Structure" is more or less isomorphic with the concept of "Hierarchy". However I see "Tree Structure" as a sub-set of the "Hierarchy" as it is a restricted term. Surely it is in all our interests to achieve replacement of the need for survival-based work with other activities we prefer? I think we can do this soon if we can send our well-educated, intelligent robots to work for us drawing on up-to-date knowledge from Wikipedia? (whether sourced from man or machine? :) Jjalexand

Graphic

 * It would make more sense if the graphic only had lines directly linking parent and child nodes. The current diagram, whilst in the correct generally accepted format for family trees, could be mis-interpreted as suggesting that there was a direct path between siblings, instead of a path via the parent. The Anome
 * I am not sure I understand what you mean. Do you think it is confusing that the nodes are drawn having borders that have the same width and color as the branch lines? branko
 * What I mean is that the lines connecting the boxes have branches in, providing connections between siblings as well as connections between parents and children. They should be replaced by direct connections between parent and child. Here's an ASCII art diagram of what I mean. The Anome

Current
---            |  Parent       | ---                   |           ++-+           |                  |     -          -    | Child 1     |        |   Child 2   | -         -

What I mean
---         |  Parent       | ---            /          \            /            \     ---     -    | Child 1       |   |  Child 2    | ---    -

 * Thank you for the explanation. I agree, and I redrew the image (easy!) as you requested. branko

thank you very much

Link doesn't work
"Wikipedia tree hierarchy of categories and pages under Computing" in the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.165.14 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Tree structure and Tree (data structure) ought to be merged. First of all, they are essentially the same concept. The fact that one is represented by a database and the other by anything is irrelevant. Secondly, as these articles stand, there is significant overlap. Finally, the descriptions of the various objects, etc., in tree (data structure) are already mostly generalised and apply to all trees, not just ones modelled by a computer. — Skittleys (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can merge Tree data structure and Hierarchical tree structure into this. Any objections? -- Tarquin 13:01 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
 * No objection at all. And I'd suggest doing this to rooted hierarchical tree structure, too!. The Anome
 * I support this too Oligomous (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree the two pages are confusingly similar now, but I think a better solution is to have one be about the concept of a tree (this could include the dewey decimal system), and the other be about the computer science or mathematical representation. I will try to implement the change. Wxidea (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tree structure


text:
International Council on Monuments and Sites

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS; Conseil international des monuments et des sites) is a professional association that works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places around the world. Now headquartered in Charenton-le-Pont, France, ICOMOS was founded in 1965 in Warsaw as a result of the Venice Charter of 1964 and offers advice to UNESCO on World Heritage Sites.

The idea behind ICOMOS dates to the Athens Conference on the restoration of historic buildings in 1931, organized by the International Museums Office. The Athens Charter of 1931 introduced the concept of international heritage. In 1964, the Second Congress of Architects and Specialists of Historic Buildings, meeting in Venice, adopted 13 resolutions. The first created the International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, better known as Venice Charter; the second, put forward by UNESCO, created ICOMOS to carry out this charter.

ICOMOS currently has over 10,100 individual members in 153 countries, 110 national committees, and 28 international scientific committees. With rare exceptions, each member must be qualified in the field of conservation and a practicing landscape architect, architect, archaeologist, anthropologist, town planner, engineer, administrator of heritage, historian, art historian, palaeontologist or archivist.

ICOMOS is a partner and founding member of the Blue Shield, which works to protect the world's cultural heritage threatened by war and natural disasters.

ICOMOS structure
ICOMOS is composed of its national committees (NCs), to which individuals and institutions apply for membership. In addition to the national committees, ICOMOS has a series of international scientific committees (ISCs), in which experts in a certain field of activity within the context of heritage conservation exchange views and debate.

The organization is headed by a president, five vice-presidents, a secretary-general and a treasurer all directly elected by the general assembly of the organization. 12 additional members are also elected by the General Assembly into the Executive Committee and five further members are co-opted into the executive board in order to represent regions of the world or areas of expertise that were not part of the executive committee following the elections. Ex officio members of the executive committee are the president of the advisory committee and the previous presidents of ICOMOS, who attend in advisory capacity. The executive committee is the executive body of ICOMOS.

The advisory committee is composed of the chairpersons of the national committees, the chairpersons of the international scientific committees and the president of ICOMOS as an ex officio member. The advisory committee was given the task to advise and make recommendations to the General Assembly and the Executive Committee on matters which concern policy and programme priorities.

National committees
National committees are subsidiary organizations created in the countries which are members of UNESCO. They bring together individual and institutional members and offer them a framework for discussion and an exchange of information. Each national committee adopts its own rules of procedure and elaborates its own program according to the goals and aims of ICOMOS. In 2021, ICOMOS has 107 national committees. ICOMOS website includes a list regularly updated.

International scientific committees
International scientific committees (ISCs) are entities focus on specialised areas of heritage conservation and are made up of members of the organisation drawn from those specialist areas. The scientific programmes of the organisation are coordinated by the "scientific council" made up of the presidents of the ISCs. Nowadays, ICOMOS has 28 ISCs. A list regularly updated is available on ICOMOS website.

Working groups
ICOMOS conducts a process of reflection on doctrine and good practice on current issues involving the conservation of cultural heritage. To this end, it sets up working groups made up of ICOMOS members who are heritage professionals: architects, archaeologists, professors and researchers, curators and scientists. The aim of these groups can be the drafting of a charter, the implementation of concrete activities (working sessions, workshops). There are currently 6 working groups, the list of which can be found on the ICOMOS website, in which experts reflect on a wide variety of subjects related to heritage conservation: indigenous heritage, sustainable development, Syria/Iraq, climate change and emerging professionals.

Documentation Center
Located at ICOMOS headquarters in Paris, it collects, analyses and disseminates information on all methods of heritage conservation, notably through its bibliographic database (14,000 references on the world's architectural heritage) and a large photo library containing more than 8,000 photographs. It is open for consultation to researchers, whether or not they are members of ICOMOS.

Publications
The regular publications of ICOMOS International are: ICOMOS News, a newsletter for members, which provides an update on the activities of the association (quarterly in French, English and Spanish); the ICOMOS Scientific Journal, published twice a year, is a thematic journal ;

The regular publications of the French Section of ICOMOS are: Le Bulletin d’information d’Icomos France; Les Cahiers de la Section Française de l’ICOMOS ; Les Dossiers techniques ; Les Mémentos techniques ; les Bulletins (dossiers des colloques); Les Enquêtes de la section française.

ICOMOS charters and doctrinal texts
In the tradition of the Athens and Venice Charters, ICOMOS has, in the years since its formation, developed and adopted a number of other charters and doctrinal texts which provide guidance to heritage conservation professionals in their work. Most such documents are created by the international committees of the organisation and thereafter adopted by the triennial General Assembly. The texts each address a specific area of professional practice in the heritage conservation professions. Following the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly held in Paris in November 2011, the list of charters is as follows:

 * International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), 1964
 * Historic Gardens (Florence Charter), 1981
 * Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter), 1987
 * Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage, 1990
 * Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage, 1996
 * International Cultural Tourism Charter – Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance, 1999
 * Principles for the Preservation of Timber Structures, 1999
 * Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage, 1999
 * ICOMOS Charter – Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, 2003
 * ICOMOS Principles for the Preservation and Conservation-Restoration of Wall Paintings, 2003
 * ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes, 2008
 * ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (also known as the 'Ename Charter'), 2008
 * Joint ICOMOS – TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes, 2011
 * The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas, 2011 (Supersedes the Washington Charter)
 * ICOMOS-IFLA principles concerning rural landscapes as heritage, 2017
 * Document on historic urban public parks, 2017
 * Salalah guidelines for the management of public archaeological sites, 2017
 * Principles for the conservation of wooden built heritage, 2017

In addition to the above there is a list of seventeen other doctrinal texts, resolutions and declarations, including the Nara Document on Authenticity. In November 1994, at the Nara Conference on Authenticity, ICOMOS published the Nara Document on Authenticity, which addresses the need for a broader understanding of cultural diversity and cultural heritage in conservation efforts involving cultural heritage sites.

Many of the national committees of ICOMOS have adopted their own charters which set standards for heritage conservation practice at national level.

ICOMOS and the World Heritage Convention
In 1972, ICOMOS was named by the UNESCO World Heritage Convention as one of the three formal advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee, along with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). As the professional and scientific adviser to the committee on all aspects of the cultural heritage, ICOMOS is responsible for the evaluation of all nominations of cultural properties made to the World Heritage List with the criteria laid down by the World Heritage Committee. In addition to the basic criterion of “outstanding universal value,” ICOMOS evaluates nominations for aspects related to authenticity, management, and conservation as specified in the World Heritage Convention.

The evaluation of nominations involves consultation between the wide-ranging expertise represented by the organization’s membership and its national and scientific committees. Members are also sent on expert missions to carry out on-site evaluations of nominated properties. This extensive consultation results in the preparation of detailed recommendations that are submitted to the World Heritage Committee at its annual meetings.

ICOMOS is also involved, through its International Secretariat and its national and scientific committees, in the preparation of reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. It advises the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on requests for technical assistance received from states that are party to (i.e. have ratified) the World Heritage Convention. ICOMOS maintains a full archive of nominations and reports at the documentation centre at its Paris headquarters.

Piero Gazzola award
The Gazzola Prize was established in 1979 in memory of Piero Gazzola, one of the greatest defenders of the conservation and restoration of historic monuments and sites, and a founder of ICOMOS. The prize is awarded every three years at the General Assembly of ICOMOS to an individual or a group of people who have worked together and contributed with distinction to the aims and objectives of ICOMOS. The beneficiary must be a member of ICOMOS and is chosen by the Selection Committee itself elected by the ICOMOS Board. The Prize is a commemorative medal and diploma.

List of awardees

 * 1981 – Jean Trouvelot
 * 1984 – Stanislaw Lorentz
 * 1987 – Masuru Sekino
 * 1990 – Gertrud Tripp
 * 1993 – Bernard Feilden
 * 1996 – Ernest Allan Connally
 * 1999 – Roland Silva
 * 2002 – Cevat Erder
 * 2005 – Ann Webster Smith
 * 2008 – Carmen Añón Feliu
 * 2011 – Nobuo Ito
 * 2014 – Henry Cleere
 * 2017 – Saleh Lamei Mostafa
 * 2020 – Amund Sinding-Larsen


text:
List of Cadw properties

Cadw is the historic environment service of the Welsh Government which manages historical buildings and ancient monuments in Wales.

title: List of Cadw properties


text:
EC Comics

Entertaining Comics, more commonly known as EC Comics, was an American publisher of comic books, which specialized in horror fiction, crime fiction, satire, military fiction, dark fantasy, and science fiction from the 1940s through the mid-1950s, notably the Tales from the Crypt series. Initially, EC was owned by Maxwell Gaines and specialized in educational and child-oriented stories. After Max Gaines died in a boating accident in 1947, his son William Gaines took over the company and began to print more mature stories, delving into the genres of horror, war, fantasy, science-fiction, adventure, and other. Noted for their high quality and shock endings, these stories were also unique in their socially conscious, progressive themes (including racial equality, anti-war advocacy, nuclear disarmament, and environmentalism) that anticipated the Civil Rights Movement and the dawn of the 1960s counterculture. In 1954–55, censorship pressures prompted it to concentrate on the humor magazine Mad, leading to the company's greatest and most enduring success. Consequently, by 1956, the company ceased publishing all of its comic lines except Mad.

In February 2024, Oni Press announced that it will revive the brand, starting with horror title Epitaphs from the Abyss and the science fiction title Cruel Universe.

The titles are licensed by the Gaines family.

Educational Comics
The firm, first known as Educational Comics, was founded by Max Gaines, former editor of the comic-book company All-American Publications, and it was initially a shell company of All-American. When that company merged with DC Comics in June 1945, Gaines retained rights to the comic book Picture Stories from the Bible, and began his new company using the EC name with a plan to market comics about science, history, and the Bible to schools and churches, and soon expanded to produce children's humor titles. A decade earlier, Max Gaines had been one of the pioneers of the comic book form, with Eastern Color Printing's proto-comic book Funnies on Parade, and with Dell Publishing's Famous Funnies: A Carnival of Comics, considered by historians the first true American comic book.

Entertaining Comics
When Max Gaines died in 1947 in a boating accident, his son William inherited the comics company. After four years (1942–1946) in the Army Air Corps, Gaines had returned home to finish school at New York University, planning to work as a chemistry teacher. He never taught but instead took over the family business. In 1949 and 1950, Bill Gaines began a line of new titles featuring horror, suspense, science fiction, military fiction and crime fiction. His editors, Al Feldstein and Harvey Kurtzman, who also drew covers and stories, gave assignments to such prominent and highly accomplished freelance artists as Johnny Craig, Reed Crandall, Jack Davis, Will Elder, George Evans, Frank Frazetta, Graham Ingels, Jack Kamen, Bernard Krigstein, Joe Orlando, John Severin, Al Williamson, Basil Wolverton, and Wally Wood. With input from Gaines, the stories were written by Kurtzman, Feldstein, and Craig. Other writers, including Carl Wessler, Jack Oleck, and Otto Binder, were later brought on board.

EC had success with its fresh approach and pioneered forming relationships with its readers through its letters to the editor and its fan organization, the National EC Fan-Addict Club. EC Comics promoted its stable of illustrators, allowing each to sign his art and encouraging them to develop idiosyncratic styles; the company additionally published one-page biographies of them in comic books. This was in contrast to the industry's common practice, in which credits were often missing, although some artists at other companies, such as the Jack Kirby – Joe Simon team, Jack Cole and Bob Kane had been prominently promoted.

EC published distinct lines of titles under its Entertaining Comics umbrella. Most notorious were its horror books, Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, and The Haunt of Fear. These titles reveled in a gruesome joie de vivre, with grimly ironic fates meted out to many of the stories' protagonists. The company's war comics, Frontline Combat and Two-Fisted Tales, often featured weary-eyed, unheroic stories out of step with the jingoistic times. Shock SuspenStories tackled weighty political and social issues such as racism, sex, drug use, and the American way of life. EC always claimed to be "proudest of our science fiction titles", with Weird Science and Weird Fantasy publishing stories unlike the space opera found in such titles as Fiction House's Planet Comics. Crime SuspenStories had many parallels with film noir. As noted by Max Allan Collins in his story annotations for Russ Cochran's 1983 hardcover reprint of Crime SuspenStories, Johnny Craig had developed a "film noir-ish bag of effects" in his visuals, while characters and themes found in the crime stories often showed the strong influence of writers associated with film noir, notably James M. Cain. Craig excelled in drawing stories of domestic scheming and conflict, leading David Hajdu to observe: "To young people of the postwar years, when the mainstream culture glorified suburban domesticity as the modern American ideal – the life that made the Cold War worth fighting – nothing else in the panels of EC comics, not the giant alien cockroach that ate earthlings, not the baseball game played with human body parts, was so subversive as the idea that the exits of the Long Island Expressway emptied onto levels of Hell."

Superior illustrations of stories with surprise endings became EC's trademark. Gaines would generally stay up late and read large amounts of material while seeking "springboards" for story concepts. The next day he would present each premise until Feldstein found one that he thought he could develop into a story. At EC's peak, Feldstein edited seven titles while Kurtzman handled three. Artists were assigned stories specific to their styles; for example, Davis and Ingels often drew gruesome, supernatural-themed stories, while Kamen and Evans did tamer material.

With hundreds of stories written, common themes surfaced. Some of EC's more well-known themes include:
 * An ordinary situation given an ironic and gruesome twist, often as poetic justice for a character's crimes. In "Collection Completed", a man takes up taxidermy to annoy his wife. When he kills and stuffs her beloved cat, the wife snaps and kills him, stuffing and mounting his body. In "Revulsion", a spaceship pilot is bothered by insects due to an experience when he found one in his food. After the story, a giant alien insect screams in horror at finding the dead pilot in his salad. Dissection, the boiling of lobsters, Mexican jumping beans, fur coats, and fishing are just a small sample of the kind of situations and objects used in this fashion.
 * The "Grim Fairy Tale", featuring gruesome interpretations of such fairy tales as "Hansel and Gretel", "Sleeping Beauty", and "Little Red Riding Hood".
 * Siamese twins were a popular theme, primarily in EC's three horror comics. No fewer than nine Siamese twin stories appeared in EC's horror and crime comics from 1950 to 1954. In an interview, Feldstein speculated that he and Gaines wrote so many Siamese twin stories because of the interdependence they had on each other.
 * Adaptations of Ray Bradbury science-fiction stories, which appeared in two dozen EC comics starting in 1952. It began inauspiciously, with an incident in which Feldstein and Gaines plagiarized two of Bradbury's stories and combined them into a single tale. Learning of the story, Bradbury sent a note praising them, while remarking that he had "inadvertently" not yet received his payment for their use. EC sent a check and negotiated a productive series of Bradbury adaptations.
 * Stories with a political message, which became common in EC's science fiction and suspense comics. Among the many topics were lynching, antisemitism, and police corruption.

The three horror titles featured stories introduced by a trio of horror hosts: The Crypt Keeper introduced Tales from the Crypt; The Vault-Keeper welcomed readers to The Vault of Horror; and the Old Witch cackled over The Haunt of Fear. Besides gleefully recounting the unpleasant details of the stories, the characters squabbled with one another, unleashed an arsenal of puns, and even insulted and taunted the readers: "Greetings, boils and ghouls..." This irreverent mockery of the audience also became the trademark attitude of Mad, and such glib give-and-take was later mimicked by many, including Stan Lee at Marvel Comics.

EC's most enduring legacy came with Mad, which started as a side project for Kurtzman before buoying the company's fortunes and becoming one of the country's most notable and long-running humor publications. When satire became an industry rage in 1954, and other publishers created imitations of Mad, EC introduced a sister title, Panic, edited by Al Feldstein and using the regular Mad artists plus Joe Orlando.

Criticisms and controversies
Beginning in the late 1940s, the comic book industry became the target of mounting public criticism for the content of comic books and their potentially harmful effects on children. The problem came to a head in 1948 with the publication by Dr. Fredric Wertham of two articles: "Horror in the Nursery" (in Collier's) and "The Psychopathology of Comic Books" (in the American Journal of Psychotherapy). As a result, an industry trade group, the Association of Comics Magazine Publishers, was formed in 1948 but proved ineffective. EC left the association in 1950 after Gaines argued with its executive director, Henry Schultz. By 1954 only three comic publishers were still members, and Schultz admitted that the ACMP seals placed on comics were meaningless.

In 1954, the publication of Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent and a highly publicized Congressional hearing on juvenile delinquency cast comic books in an especially poor light. At the same time, a federal investigation led to a shakeup in the distribution companies that delivered comic books and pulp magazines across America. Sales plummeted, and several companies went out of business.

Gaines called a meeting of his fellow publishers and suggested that the comic book industry gather to fight outside censorship and help repair the industry's damaged reputation. They formed the Comics Magazine Association of America and its Comics Code Authority. The CCA code expanded on the ACMP's restrictions. Unlike its predecessor, the CCA code was rigorously enforced, with all comics requiring code approval before their publication. This not being what Gaines intended, he refused to join the association. Among the Code's new rules were that no comic book title could use the words "horror" or "terror" or "weird" on its cover. When distributors refused to handle many of his comics, Gaines ended publication of his three horror and the two SuspenStory titles on September 14, 1954. EC shifted its focus to a line of more realistic comic book titles, including M.D. and Psychoanalysis (known as the New Direction line). It also renamed its remaining science-fiction comic. Since the initial issues did not carry the Comics Code seal, the wholesalers refused to carry them. After consulting with his staff, Gaines reluctantly started submitting his comics to the Comics Code; all the New Direction titles carried the seal starting with the second issue. This attempted revamp failed commercially and after the fifth issue, all the New Direction titles were canceled.

"Judgment Day"
Gaines waged several battles with the Comics Code Authority in an attempt to keep his magazines free from censorship. In one particular example noted by comics historian Digby Diehl, Gaines threatened Judge Charles Murphy, the Comics Code Administrator, with a lawsuit when Murphy ordered EC to alter the science-fiction story "Judgment Day", in Incredible Science Fiction #33 (February 1956). The story, by writer Al Feldstein and artist Joe Orlando, was a reprint from the pre-Code Weird Fantasy #18 (April 1953), inserted when the Code Authority had rejected an initial, original story, "An Eye for an Eye", drawn by Angelo Torres, but was itself also "objected to" because of "the central character being Black".

The story depicted a human astronaut, a representative of the Galactic Republic, visiting the planet Cybrinia, inhabited by robots. He finds the robots divided into functionally identical orange and blue races, one of which has fewer rights and privileges than the other. The astronaut determines that due to the robots' bigotry, the Galactic Republic should not admit the planet until these problems are resolved. In the final panel, he removes his helmet, revealing himself to be a Black man. Murphy demanded, without any authority in the Code, that the Black astronaut had to be removed.

As Diehl recounted in Tales from the Crypt: The Official Archives:

"This really made 'em go bananas in the Code czar's office. 'Judge Murphy was off his nut. He was really out to get us', recalls [EC editor] Feldstein. 'I went in there with this story and Murphy says, 'It can't be a Black man'. But ... but that's the whole point of the story!' Feldstein sputtered. When Murphy continued to insist that the Black man had to go, Feldstein put it on the line. 'Listen', he told Murphy, 'you've been riding us and making it impossible to put out anything at all because you guys just want us out of business'. [Feldstein] reported the results of his audience with the czar to Gaines, who was furious [and] immediately picked up the phone and called Murphy. 'This is ridiculous!' he bellowed. 'I'm going to call a press conference on this. You have no grounds, no basis, to do this. I'll sue you'. Murphy made what he surely thought was a gracious concession. 'All right. Just take off the beads of sweat'. At that, Gaines and Feldstein both went ballistic. 'Fuck you!' they shouted into the telephone in unison. Murphy hung up on them, but the story ran in its original form."

Feldstein, interviewed for the book Tales of Terror: The EC Companion, reiterated his recollection of Murphy making the request: "So he said it can't be a Black [person]. So I said, 'For God's sakes, Judge Murphy, that's the whole point of the Goddamn story!' So he said, 'No, it can't be a Black'. Bill [Gaines] just called him up [later] and raised the roof, and finally they said, 'Well, you gotta take the perspiration off'. I had the stars glistening in the perspiration on his Black skin. Bill said, 'Fuck you', and he hung up."

Although that reprinted story ran uncensored, Incredible Science Fiction #33 was the last EC comic book published. Gaines switched focus to EC's Picto-Fiction titles, a line of typeset black-and-white magazines with heavily illustrated stories. Fiction was formatted to alternate illustrations with blocks of typeset text, and some of the contents were rewrites of stories previously published in EC's comic books. This experimental line lost money from the start and only lasted two issues per title. When EC's national distributor went bankrupt, Gaines dropped all of his titles except Mad.

Later years
Mad sold well throughout the company's troubles, and Gaines focused exclusively on publishing it in magazine form. This move was to reconcile its editor Harvey Kurtzman, who had received an offer to join the magazine Pageant, but preferred to remain in charge of his magazine. The switch also removed Mad from the auspices of the Comics Code. Kurtzman, regardless, left Mad soon afterward when Gaines would not give him 51 percent control of the magazine, and Gaines brought back Al Feldstein as Kurtzman's successor. The magazine enjoyed great success for decades afterward.

Gaines sold the company, as E. C. Publications, Inc., in the 1960s, and it was eventually absorbed into the same corporation that later purchased National Periodical Publications (later known as DC Comics). In June 1967, Kinney National Company (it formed on August 12, 1966, after Kinney Parking/National Cleaning merge) bought National Periodical and E.C., then it purchased Warner Bros.-Seven Arts in early 1969. Due to a financial scandal involving price fixing in its parking operations, Kinney Services spun off its non-entertainment assets as National Kinney Corporation in September 1971, and it changed names to Warner Communications on February 10, 1972.

The Tales from the Crypt title was licensed for a movie of that name in 1972. This was followed by another film, The Vault of Horror, in 1973. The omnibus movies Creepshow (1982) and Creepshow 2, while using original scripts written by Stephen King and George A. Romero, were inspired by EC's horror comics. Creepshow 2 included animated interstitial material between vignettes, featuring a young protagonist who goes to great length to acquire and keep possession of an issue of the comic book Creepshow.

In 1989, Tales from the Crypt began airing on the U.S. cable-TV network HBO. The series ran through 1996, comprising 93 episodes and seven seasons. Tales from the Crypt spawned two children's television series on broadcast TV, Tales from the Cryptkeeper and Secrets of the Cryptkeeper's Haunted House. It also spawned three "Tales from the Crypt"-branded movies, Demon Knight, Bordello of Blood, and Ritual. In 1997, HBO followed the TV series with the similar Perversions of Science (comprising 10 episodes), the episodes of which were based on stories from EC's Weird Science.

Reprints
Although the last non-Mad EC publication came out in 1956, EC Comics have remained popular for half a century, due to reprints that have kept them in the public eye. In 1964–1966, Ballantine Books published five black-and-white paperbacks of EC stories: Tales of the Incredible showcased EC science fiction, while the paperbacks Tales from the Crypt and The Vault of Horror reprinted EC horror tales. EC's Ray Bradbury adaptations were collected in The Autumn People (horror and crime) and Tomorrow Midnight (science fiction).

The EC Horror Library (Nostalgia Press, 1971) featured 23 EC stories selected by Bhob Stewart and Bill Gaines, with an introduction by Stewart and an essay by theater critic Larry Stark. One of the first books to reprint comic book stories in color throughout, it followed the original color guides by Marie Severin. In addition to the stories from EC's horror titles, the book also included Bernard Krigstein's famous "Master Race" story from Impact and the first publication of Angelo Torres' "An Eye for an Eye", originally slated for the final issue of Incredible Science Fiction but rejected by the Comics Code.

East Coast Comix reprinted several EC's New Trend comics in comic form between 1973 and 1975. The first reprint was the final issue of Tales from the Crypt, with the title revised to state The Crypt of Terror. This issue was originally meant to be the first issue of a fourth horror comic which was changed to the final issue of Tales from the Crypt at the last minute when the horror comics were cancelled in 1954. A dozen issues ended up being reprinted.

Russ Cochran reprints include EC Portfolios, The Complete EC Library, EC Classics, RCP Reprints (Russ Cochran), EC Annuals, and EC Archives (hardcover books). The EC full-color hardcovers were under the Gemstone imprint. Dark Horse continued this series in the same format.

In 2013, Dark Horse Comics began reprinting the EC Archives in hardcover volumes, picking up where Gemstone left off, and using the same hardcover full-color format. The first volume to be reprinted was Tales From the Crypt: Volume 4, with an essay by Cochran.

In 2012, Fantagraphics Books began a reprint series called The EC Artists' Library featuring the comics published by EC, releasing each book by artist. This collection is printed in black and white.

In February 2010, IDW Publishing began publishing a series of Artist's Editions books in 15" × 22" format, which consist of scans of the original inked comic book art, including pasted lettering and other editorial artifacts that remain on the original pages. Subsequent EC books in the series included a collection of Wally Wood's EC comic stories, a collection of stories from Mad, and books collecting the work of Jack Davis and Graham Ingels.

EC publications

 * See List of EC Comics publications

title: EC Comics


text:
Basingwerk Abbey

Basingwerk Abbey (Abaty Dinas Basing) is a Grade I listed ruined abbey near Holywell, Flintshire, Wales. The abbey, which was founded in the 12th century, belonged to the Order of Cistercians. It maintained significant lands in the English county of Derbyshire. The abbey was abandoned and its assets sold following the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536.

The site is now managed by Cadw – the national Welsh heritage agency.

Medieval history

The abbey was founded in 1132 by Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, who had already brought Benedictine monks from Savigny Abbey in southern Normandy. Likely the first location of the abbey was not at the current location at Greenfields but at the nearby Hen Blas. The abbey became part of the Cistercian Order in 1147, when the Savignac Order merged with the Cistercians. It was a daughter house of Combermere Abbey in Cheshire, of which Earl Ranulf was a great benefactor. However, in 1147 the abbot and convent of Savigny transferred it to Buildwas Abbey in Shropshire. Twenty years later, the monks of Basingwerk challenged their subjection to Buildwas, but Savigny found against them and sent a letter notifying their decision to the abbot of Cîteaux, the head of the Cistercian order. An Earl of Chester gave the manor of West Kirby to the Abbey.

In 1157, Owain Gwynedd encamped his army at Basingwerk, though at the Hen Blas site not at the current site, before facing the forces of Henry II at the Battle of Ewloe. The Welsh Prince stopped at the abbey because of its strategic importance. It blocked the route Henry II had to take to reach Twthill, Rhuddlan. In the fighting that followed, Owain Gwynedd split his army routing the English near Ewloe.

The abbey had significant lands in the English county of Derbyshire. Henry II gave the monks a manor near Glossop. The Monks' Road and the Abbot's Chair near the town are a reminder of the Abbey's efforts to administer their possession. In 1290 the Abbey gained a market charter for Glossop. The monks also got another charter for nearby Charlesworth in 1328.

By the 13th century, the abbey was under the patronage of Llywelyn the Great, Prince of Gwynedd. His son Dafydd ap Llywelyn gave St Winefride's Well to the abbey. The monks harnessed the power of the Holywell stream to run a corn mill and to treat the wool from their sheep. The monks sided with the English in Edward I's late 13th century conquest of Wales, for which they were rewarded with permission to hold a market and fair at Holywell. In 1433, the monks leased all of Glossopdale in Derbyshire to the Talbot family, the future Earls of Shrewsbury (1442). The increasing worldliness of the abbey by this time can be seen in the rebuilding of the domestic buildings to make them more comfortable, and in the abbot's patronage of bards like Tudor Aled. There was also some laxity in the religious observance - the last abbot, Nicholas Pennant, was the son of his predecessor Thomas.

A legend says a 12th-century Basingwerk Abbey monk was lured into a nearby wood by the singing of a nightingale. He thought he had only been listening a short while, but when he returned, the abbey was in ruins. He crumbled to dust shortly afterwards.

At the Valor Ecclestiasticus survey of 1535, Basingwerk was assessed at £150, putting it among the smaller houses that were earmarked for closure. By this time the number of monks had probably dwindled to two or three. In 1536, abbey life came to an end with the Dissolution of the Monasteries during the reign of Henry VIII. Its dissolution was made lawful by the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries Act and the lands of the abbey were granted to lay owners, with the site itself passing to Henry ap Harry of Llanasa. The abbot received a pension of £17 per annum.

Two centuries earlier a Welsh seer, Robin Ddu ("Robin the Dark"), said the roof on the refectory would go to a church under Moel Famau. It did: when the abbey was sold, the parts of the roof went to St Mary's Church in Cilcain below the slopes of Moel Famau. Another section of roof was reportedly given to the Collegiate and Parochial Church of St Peter at Ruthin, where it still covers the North Nave. Its Jesse window went to the Church of St Dyfnog at Llanrhaeadr-yng-Nghinmeirch. The choir stalls went to St Mary on the Hill, Chester, and some of the roofing lead was used to repair Holt Castle, as well as several royal castles in Ireland.

Present day

Since 1923, the remains of the abbey have been in state care. The ruins are part of Greenfield Valley Heritage Park, and are managed by Cadw. In common with most medieval monasteries, the abbey buildings were centred on a large church, with the domestic buildings of the monks in three ranges surrounding a cloister to its south. The majority of the buildings, including the church, were erected in the 13th century. The 50m long cruciform church has been reduced to foundations and low walls except for the south transept, where the west walls still stands high with one high window and the arch that led to the south aisle. Of the buildings round the cloister more remains, as they were converted to a house after the Dissolution. Immediately south of the church is the sacristy, then the chapter house. This is a 12th century room, to which a vaulted eastern section was added, divided by an arcade of two round arches which still stands. Around the walls is the bench on which the monks sat for chapter meetings. To the south is the dormitory undercroft, and to the south of that a warming room was added in the mid-13th century. This end of the range was heavily rebuilt in the later middle ages, with the vault being removed and a new hall and chamber built. Over this range stood the monks' dormitory, of which part of the side walls still stand, with lancet windows. Extending east from the south end of this range is another range of uncertain date, possibly incorporating the infirmary or abbot's house. In the south range are the staircase up to the dormitory, and the refectory. In the normal Cistercian manner, this is aligned north-south, perpendicular to the body of the range. It was a high-quality chamber, and elaborate lancets with Early English shafting survive in the west wall, along with the reader's pulpit and the hatch to the kitchen. Of the kitchen, and the entire west range, virtually nothing survives. The latter was separated from the cloister proper by a 'lane', as can be better seen at the Cistercian houses of Buildwas and Byland.

The abbey marks the starting point of the North Wales Pilgrims Way.

title: Basingwerk Abbey