Talk:List of World Heritage in Danger

Dispute over Jerusalem
A dispute has been brought to the Mediation Cabal at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-03 List of World Heritage Sites in danger and I have agreed to try to help sort it out. To clarify my understanding of the problem, I see three edits for the "Old City of Jerusalem" entry:

1. Under Israel header:
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Site proposed by Jordan in 1981. However, it now belongs to Israel. 
 * proposed by User:FatCatIL (and is the current version) with the edit summary "A compromise - it is now stated in the article that the site was proposed by Jordan, AND that it now belongs to Israel".

2. Under Jerusalem header
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Site proposed by Jordan in 1981, without political or sovereignty claims by any individual State. 
 * Proposed by User:A51Abductee, with edit summary "Jerusalem is not listed under any particular state on the official UNESCO list, as now stated in the article. Please stop politicizing or adding POV to the list".

3. Under Jerusalem header
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Since the official status of the city relative to the concerned authorities has remained unsettled, the property is listed as a "State Party" in itself.
 * Last version by User:Joey80, with no edit summary.

The versions are listed going back in time with (1) being the latest.

There appears to be two issues, the header and the content. The article hinges around one source, the UNESCO Listings. The reference given has this to say:
 * "The site of Jerusalem was nominated in 1981 by Jordan, it being agreed at the time that inscription should in no way be regarded as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by any State."

Thus there was a deliberate attempt to keep politics out of it. Of course that was 1981 and the issue politically is now whether it should be in Israel or Palestine. Can we continue to keep politics out of it?

The UNESCO list has this site under the heading "Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)". Can we use that? One would need very strong arguments to go against the source.

For content, I wonder whether this is OK:
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Site proposed by Jordan in 1981, without political or sovereignty claims by any individual State. However, the site is now de facto part of Israel.

This avoids using the word "belong", but recognises that maintaining the site as a Heritage site is really now the responsibility of Israel as the de facto power.

Please give you views on this compromise or suggest other compromises. --Bduke 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This dispute appears to have ended. I'll close the mediation. Thanks, everyone. --Bduke 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that somewhere along the line, the Jerusalem property was again listed under Israel. I'd like to revert this to "Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)", the phraseology used by UNESCO owing to the unresolved status of the city. Maybe with a footnote explaining the situation? --
 * Tokyo tintin (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on that User:Tokyo tintin, I've reinstated the previous wording. It turns out an IP made the change back in May without trying to establish consensus. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
The World Heritage Committee removed the Walled City of Baku from its endangered list and in fact praised Azerbaijan for its efforts to preserve it, see here. By this I removed Azerbaijan from the list. Baku87 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Planned improvements
Looking for feedback on improving this list. Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
The lead feels a little bit thin, I think it would be useful to talk about how a sites ends up on the danger list, for example do states suggest it to UNESCO or is it done on UNESCO's initiative? Do sites on the danger list get any extra protection or funding, or is it simply to raise awareness? Is there some background to why the danger list was introduced, a particular site or issue that triggered it? Maybe have a little about the criteria as they're included in the table? It might not be practical to have a map given how spread out the sites are, but List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom uses in conjunction with coordinate templates with names, ie: 51.78°N, -3.08°W, so that a link is produced to Bing and Google maps showing the location of the sites. Caveat: if you read the FLC for where the map is mentioned you'll see that's it's not uncontroversial and it is preferred to use an on-wiki alternative if possible, although I think using Google and Bing in this way works very well. The table makes sense to me; I thought maybe there'd be a description of each site, but given the important thing is why they're listed I suppose that's not necessary and why it's been included. Is the key correct? It says: "Year" is the year of listing as site in danger, but the ear column looks more like when the site was first inscribed on the WHS list and the endangered column is when it was listed as endangered. Overall, a very good list. Nev1 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. The list was very recently expanded so it is still a bit rough around the edges. In fact there used to be a description column in one of the older revisions (see article history), but I (and Ericleb01) decided not to repeat the description which is/(should be) present in the respective continent lists of WH sites. This is a list about sites in danger and we should therefore focus on the reasons/threats. Do you think that the list of former WH sites in danger (at the bottom of the article) should be transformed into a table format like the present sites in danger? Naturally the references are all UNESCO pages. Is this a problem for WP:FL? Lastly, are you interested/willing to help with the intro? bamse (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * references
 * ,, , , , , ,


 * ideas for expansion
 * add statistics/diagram from


 * non-unesco sources
 * ,

Salonga National Park
The entry for the Salonga National Park indicates that the site was endangered from 1984 to 1992. However, the source does not reflect this, and UNESCO is saying that it was only inscribed from 1999 onwards. Is the information missing a source or was it never endangered prior to 1999? This would help for the lead over at the African list. Thanks. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, haha, you placed the same date as the Garamba National Park by mistake. I went ahead and fixed it. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. bamse (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  23:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 update
. Removed Pakistan, but somehow Panama wasnt even here. (Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)).
 * Panama was added to UNESCO's list just two days before you said that ;) Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sites should not be removed from the article if they cease to be on the danger list! Move them from the first ("Currently listed sites") to the second ("Previously listed sites") table instead. I put back the Lahore site. And started with the 2012 additions. Should be finished today. bamse (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Update complete. bamse (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Overweight Introduction
In its current form the introduction to this article leaves much to be desired.

What would help tremendously would be subdividing it into, for example:

Introduction: The Organisation Intro: Natural Sites Intro: Historic Sites Intro: Future Outlook

These headings were derived from a cursory reading, and should be considered a suggestion only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.144.54 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, is all you recommend to introduce section headings or something else? Please note that part of the introduction applies to both natural and historic sites (e.g. "potential dangers"), so a division in natural and historic sites makes not much sense IMO. bamse (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the entire lead right now is one massive section. And per FA requirements (dont know how it was FL'd) leads needs to be shortened to refelct article content not to inclue all condent not on the list.Lihaas (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No idea about FA requirements, but writing a summary style lead for lists seems a bit strange to me. If you have a look at other featured lists, they typically write about the non-list subject (here "World Heritage in Danger") and perhaps refer to some examples in the list or give some statistics based on the list, just like this lead section does. Featured list criteria say that the lead should be engaging, introduce the subject, and define the scope and inclusion criteria. I believe the present lead satisfies these criteria. The first paragraph defines scope and inclusion criteria in general terms. The second paragraph illustrates this with examples. The third paragraph tells about how sites end up on this list or how they get removed. The fourth paragraph deals with external (non-UNESCO) opinion on the list. Personally I think that all of this is relevant for this article/list and I would not want to cut. If you think the lead is too long, feel free to split off part of it in sections (as in 1st Academy Awards for instance) or list it at WP:FLRC. bamse (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any real issues with the lead. The leads in FLs are significantly different to those in FAs, as lists need more comprehensive and often longer leads as they typically do not have any other sections. The lead was approved just a year ago at FLC—a strong indication it is well-written for the purpose. In my opinion the logic of the lead as it is, is better than the proposal by 196.15.144.54, as that overlooks many important aspects. I will remove lead as it definitively does not need to be re-written. Arsenikk (talk)  12:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the "in danger" category
The World Heritage in Danger category is being discussed at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_10. One reason for proposing the deletion of the category is that updates to the status of sites should be made on this article rather than in category space. DexDor (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated needed
The list should be updated with the Heritage Sites in Syria that were disignated as in Danger in June 2013. Crispulop (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Tokyo tintin (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Still needs update, like the lead still said "as of 2012..."--Jarodalien (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Everglades sea level rise
It's possible that sea level rise should be considered for the Everglades/Everglades National Park, since the southern portion is about a single meter elevation against a likely rise of that much this century, either killing it directly, or facilitating more damaging tides and storm surges. B137 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of World Heritage in Danger. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/61F7YBBDB?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Heritage in Danger. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205165943/http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1987/sc-87-conf005-9e.pdf to http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1987/sc-87-conf005-9e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)